Spinoff: are top colleges not the goal anymore?

[arivecchi]

I've noticed that it is very in vogue for people to say that getting into a top college is not worth it/that much of an accomplishment, not that impressive, etc. etc. Thoughts? Is going to a top college not hip/desirable anymore?

[citymama]

Yeah, right. ;)

Well, there are lots of good schools that aren't Ivy Leagues or Seven Sisters or Stanford - but I consider those schools also to be among the top colleges. The only reason I wouldn't want my kid to apply to one of those schools is I couldn't afford to send her there! State schools for you, young lady.

[codex57]

I've been lucky to talk to some frank and open high school teachers lately. Kids keep getting dumber/lazier every year (it started when I sat next to a teacher from a nice area grading papers and I was shocked at the crappy test scores). Add in the extra competition/requirements to get into colleges and more kids are giving up. Along with their normally helicopter parents.

I think it's just sour grapes. "Top" college now seems to include any 4 yr college.

[elektra]

I read an article about this maybe a year ago. (Can't remember the publication- probably some weekly news mag.)
And it said just this, that more kids were going to smaller, or more specialized schools. They tied it into the whole gen Y "what have you done for me lately" mentality, and how kids are expecting more out of their education. More kids are selecting schools that offer them much more in return than the school name. They are choosing schools that have certain specialties or that have more attractive scholarship packages than what another more popular university might offer.
I should try to find the article.
I think the cache of a big name school is still there, but more kids/parents are not getting as caught up in the brand name of the school and are going for smaller schools that may have more to offer, even though they are not Ivy league or as well known nationally.

[elektra]

I've been lucky to talk to some frank and open high school teachers lately. Kids keep getting dumber/lazier every year (it started when I sat next to a teacher from a nice area grading papers and I was shocked at the crappy test scores). Add in the extra competition/requirements to get into colleges and more kids are giving up. Along with their normally helicopter parents.

I think it's just sour grapes. "Top" college now seems to include any 4 yr college.

Well maybe this is the real case and the kids in the article I read are just telling themselves that "they want more out of their education", when the real answer is that they are just not good enough to get into the top schools! LOL.

[egoldber]

The consolidated on-line college application means kids apply to MANY more schools than they used to and it is much more competitive to get into many Ivys than it was in the dark ages when I was applying to schools. ;) This is an extremely hot topic on the DC Urban moms list that I read (and am afraid to post at LOL!!).

But I had no interest in an Ivy school and I honestly hope my kids don't want to go to an Ivy. They are $$$$$, I don't think the education is that much better (IMO) and I don't want my kids to carry that debt burden into their early professional lives. I think you can get an amazing education at any college and it's mainly what you put into it.

A "top" school and a "good" education and "success" mean very different things to different people.

[codex57]

Well maybe this is the real case and the kids in the article I read are just telling themselves that "they want more out of their education", when the real answer is that they are just not good enough to get into the top schools! LOL.

Could be both, but I tend to think the negative is more likely.

It's a simple numbers game. There are only so many "top" colleges. Only so many spots to go around. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think applications have gone up. At worst, they're still the same. I don't recall reading that the number of kids applying has gone down.

That means more and more rejections. Combined with how entitled kids are now, partially fueled by a new generation of helicopter parents, and it just makes more sense that they make excuses to justify why they're not going to a "top" college.

I agree that a "top" college means different things to different people, but I see the problem even with state schools (of which some are elite). This is just anecdotal stuff, but I really think it's more kids are lazier/entitled now rather than they think they can find a better education at some non-name school. That might be the case on occasion, but I really think it's just sour grapes for the overwhelming majority of them.

[smiles33]

I think it's not so much that top schools aren't as attractive or impressive, but the fact that they're impressive based on a limited set of factors, like high average SATs, huge endowments, the history/tradition/reputation, and insanely competitive admissions processes.

Personally, I believe parents/students need to take a more nuanced approach to evaluating schools. My parents, like many of my friends' parents, thought going to a name brand school was critically important to "being successful" and that's how they saw things. For my kids, I want to help them find the best school that fits their needs. What's the student culture like? Is my DD going to be another number at a large university, pitted against classmates trying to enroll in the classes she needs to graduate? Will her faculty actually get to know her or will she be one of 4,000 students in her graduating class?

I grew up with parents who thought the goal was Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, PERIOD. Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, etc. were "acceptable" but not as impressive or worth the cost of moving East. My mom actually cried when I didn't get into the 3 schools of their dreams.

I regret not having the initiative to check out other options like the small liberal arts colleges when I was in high school. In fact, I think I'd be thrilled if my DDs didn't go to a huge university like Harvard but instead went a smaller liberal arts college like Williams (which is just as prestigious to me but not necessarily the average American).

[elektra]

I just found an article that addresses this a bit. It's not the one I was thinking of originally but it basically says that there are more kids applying and so the "elite" category is expanding.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/39401/page/1

[Moneypenny]

I think it's not so much that top schools aren't as attractive or impressive, but the fact that they're impressive based on a limited set of factors, like high average SATs, huge endowments, the history/tradition/reputation, and insanely competitive admissions processes.

Personally, I believe parents/students need to take a more nuanced approach to evaluating schools. My parents, like many of my friends' parents, thought going to a name brand school was critically important to "being successful" and that's how they saw things. For my kids, I want to help them find the best school that fits their needs. What's the student culture like? Is my DD going to be another number at a large university, pitted against classmates trying to enroll in the classes she needs to graduate? Will her faculty actually get to know her or will she be one of 4,000 students in her graduating class?

I grew up with parents who thought the goal was Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, PERIOD. Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, etc. were "acceptable" but not as impressive or worth the cost of moving East. My mom actually cried when I didn't get into the 3 schools of their dreams.

I regret not having the initiative to check out other options like the small liberal arts colleges when I was in high school. In fact, I think I'd be thrilled if my DDs didn't go to a huge university like Harvard but instead went a smaller liberal arts college like Williams (which is just as prestigious to me but not necessarily the average American).

I've worked in college admissions for 10 years, and I completely agree with this post. Prestige does not guarantee a meaningful or beneficial educational experience.

[AnnieW625]

Well for me economy wise and really more SAT score wise (I got a 670 combined, and my senior year was diagnosed with two learning disabilities that effect how I take standardized tests). Before I took my standardized tests my sophomore and junior years I had schools like Stanford, Cal, and USC at the top of my list. Cornell, and Syracuse were also up there but I wasn't sure I wanted to move across country. Once I knew I probably would never get into schools with those test scores (even though I had solid 3.5 gpa, which was quite good for the mid 90s) I started looking at other alternatives. I applied to a small Catholic college, St. Mary's of CA, and two public schools, one of which I got into. I was happy with that because I had this thing about being done with college no later than 22 (I went to high school and had non honors classes with all of the honors track kids that no honors classes were offered for stuff like French, Chemistry, and electives; I was not in any honor classes).

Now for DD and #2 I don't know what we are going to do because CA state schools are getting much more expensive so if she wants to go out of state and the financial aid packages are right I would have no reason to not tell her her/it that they can't go to the schools of their choice, even if they are top private schools. We'll make it work.

In 2005 my sister who hated school applied to two 4 yrs,., she didn't get into either. She did the JC route, transferred and graduated just points away from Cum Laude from a state university. My three cousins who all went to Catholic high schools were all encouraged to apply to 8 or 9 schools. Three they knew they would get into, three that they hoped they would get into (but it was uber unlikely), and 3 that would be really nice, and outside of their comfort zone. I honestly hate that policy because it's really only there to make the school look good. One ended up at Johns Hopkins (and has now graduated) and that was her out of comfort zone school, but she ended up loving it and had a good time. But in all honesty I think that is a bogus idea.

[wellyes]

I read a lot about community college getting massive enrollmnet, having to expand, so crowded they have to have classes in the middle of the night. And almost always, they quote a student as saying "I am getting the exact same thing as someone at a private college for 1/10 the price" or some economist saying essentially the same thing.

While I'm glad that community colleges are booming, and it makes it sound like going to a selective private school is something only a fool would do. I think that is going waaaaay to far.

Of course you *can* get a great education at a community school based on your background, your motivation, your abilities and most importantly who your teachers are. And of course there are many people who paid $30,000+ per year who learned nothing, or who got a liberal arts/social sciences degree who later barely scrape by due to lousy wages and massive debt. But that doesn't mean that selecting your college based on fees is a smart choice.

[pb&j]

But I had no interest in an Ivy school and I honestly hope my kids don't want to go to an Ivy. They are $$$$$, I don't think the education is that much better (IMO) and I don't want my kids to carry that debt burden into their early professional lives. I think you can get an amazing education at any college and it's mainly what you put into it.

A small handful of top colleges, including Wellesley, have financial aid packages that eliminate or reduce debt for students. http://www.wellesley.edu/admission/admission/finaidpolicyFAQ.html

So an Ivy/Seven Sister/etc education is not necessarily out of reach or unduly burdensome.

[michellerw]

I've noticed that it is very in vogue for people to say that getting into a top college is not worth it/that much of an accomplishment, not that impressive, etc. etc. Thoughts? Is going to a top college not hip/desirable anymore?

I work in the higher ed industry and I can tell you that admissions have gotten extremely competitive in the last 10 years or so, so what many of us consider "top" are almost completely out of reach for even most intelligent kids. I probably couldn't get into my prep school now, not to mention my college or graduate school.

Schools that were always considered fine schools are now first tier schools and a lot of safeties don't take kids with less than an A- or B+ average. While all of this is happening, the kind of shocking thing is that an amazing number of first year college students simply cannot write. My husband taught a first and second year level course last year at a local public university (he has traditionally taught graduate students) at a local university and spent more time than he wanted teaching outside of his content area, focusing on basic writing skills because as he put it, "if I don't teach these kids to write, no one else will."

The sad part is that the majority of them came from one of the top school systems in the country (Fairfax County, VA).

And yes, IMO, too many people in this country go to four year universities. There are something like 2000 four year degree granting institutions in the United States of America. The USA definitely suffers from the Lake Woebegone Effect -- our children are not and cannot all be the best and the brightest and I do believe that college isn't for everyone and, what's more, it's not the responsibility of the university to provide job training. It's our responsibility as parents to take our kids off the conveyor belt and help them find what fulfills them, makes them happy, and will make them a living as adults.


I've worked in college admissions for 10 years, and I completely agree with this post. Prestige does not guarantee a meaningful or beneficial educational experience.

For more on this, check out the book "Colleges that Change Lives" by Loren Pope.

[AnnieW625]

I read a lot about community college getting massive enrollmnet, having to expand, so crowded they have to have classes in the middle of the night. And almost always, they quote a student as saying "I am getting the exact same thing as someone at a private college for 1/10 the price" or some economist saying essentially the same thing.

That's exactly what DH told my sister as he had done the same thing. Even one of my cousins exs from Johns Hopkins said the same thing after their sophomore year when talking to some friends who were at the local JC. You'll get a better college experience at a small $30K year school than you can at a JC, but yeah the education could be identical for general ed. stuff.

[michellerw]

This is an extremely hot topic on the DC Urban moms list that I read (and am afraid to post at LOL!!).


OT: Some of those people are INSANE. I grew up in the DC area and I seriously never, ever knew moms like some of the moms on that list (probably because my very centered and sane mother avoided them like the plague). And the way they get going on the private schools and the preschools. Oh my gosh! /OT

[codex57]

I read a lot about community college getting massive enrollmnet, having to expand, so crowded they have to have classes in the middle of the night. And almost always, they quote a student as saying "I am getting the exact same thing as someone at a private college for 1/10 the price" or some economist saying essentially the same thing.

While I'm glad that community colleges are booming, and it makes it sound like going to a selective private school is something only a fool would do. I think that is going waaaaay to far.

Of course you *can* get a great education at a community school based on your background, your motivation, your abilities and most importantly who your teachers are. And of course there are many people who paid $30,000+ per year who learned nothing, or who got a liberal arts/social sciences degree who later barely scrape by due to lousy wages and massive debt. But that doesn't mean that selecting your college based on fees is a smart choice.

I, along with lots of friends and family have taken courses at CCs. Many of them. Yeah, not the same as a top school. However, if you're doing it to transfer to a top 4 yr college after going for just a couple of years, I think that's a perfectly legit reason for choosing a CC. It's risky tho so you better get into a school that's better than one you passed up.

The problem with CCs is that it's not always filled with the most motivated folks. It's awfully easy to get sidetracked there. So yeah, doing GEs there can be a good move financially. It just comes with a lot of risks that may or may not be obvious.

Stanford is offering free tuition to families making under $100,000. Other elite schools might join in. That's one reason to aim high. Cheaper than a CC. :D

[ZeeBaby]

Most people in my group of friends would be extremely happy if their child got into an Ivy, but most of us can't afford to send our children there. I am hoping that as more Ivys expand their free tuition programs my children will have a chance, but right now, I don't see it in their future with our savings. If my child got in and needed to take a huge loan package, I would really have to talk to them seriously about state school options. We are in a state where the state colleges are very good, so that makes it a much easier decision for me.

[michellerw]

I read a lot about community college getting massive enrollmnet, having to expand, so crowded they have to have classes in the middle of the night. And almost always, they quote a student as saying "I am getting the exact same thing as someone at a private college for 1/10 the price" or some economist saying essentially the same thing.

There are a lot of economic factors playing into the expansion of the community college sector right now. The first is that the CCs are on the front line of providing job training (did you hear that President Obama -- NOT the universities!) and the CCs often have partnerships with private industry. Among my company's client base, offhand, I can think of a number of schools that have partnerships with the auto industry or similar.

Additionally, many CCs are providing other job retraining during the recession, so when you hear about people going back to school for retraining in nursing, medical technology, or another in demand field, they are very likely going to a CC. They should be anyhow. It's ridiculous to go to Strayer or whatever and pay $$$$$$$$$$$ for a nursing degree when your local CC will help you do it for SO MUCH LESS.

Finally, the "reverse transfer" trend is definitely on the rise with kids in their first two years of school. This is typically occurring with students who are leaving private schools with heavy financial aid (but not grants) and they're looking to cover their gen ed credits and then transfer back after completing their associates degrees.

There's a lot of informaiton about all of this in the CHE (chronicle.com) blogs as well as Inside Higher Ed (insidehighered.com) and University Business Online, all of which I read every day (where's the big nerd smiley).

[michellerw]

Most people in my group of friends would be extremely happy if their child got into an Ivy, but most of us can't afford to send our children there. I am hoping that as more Ivys expand their free tuition programs my children will have a chance, but right now, I don't see it in their future with our savings. If my child got in and needed to take a huge loan package, I would really have to talk to them seriously about state school options. We are in a state where the state colleges are very good, so that makes it a much easier decision for me.

Ok, one final post.

Schools that (I can think of offhand) currently provide free tuition (ie, no loans all grants) to kids that get in if need is demonstrated. Some have a threshold for combined family income before filling in the gap for the EFC, others don't. Financial Aid is actually very complicated, but this is a private program offered by these institutions.

Harvard
Princeton
Swarthmore
Bryn Mawr
Haverford
Davidson (I believe they were, in fact, the first)

This became a huge, huge HUGE trend right before the economy went into the toilet and most of the schools that can afford to do this have massive endowments.

[egoldber]

There is a HUGE range of schools in between Ivys and community school. Many people really do choose some of those schools for various reasons. I would prefer that my kids went UVA or Virginia Tech vs Harvard. But even that is not a given these days.

[wellyes]

I will not tell DD to limit her choices based on cost. I went to a $30k/year school and so did DH. Due to financial aid, grants, and a little parental help (less than 50%) we both came out with a few grand each in college loans. Worth it to me. My college is NOT top-tier, but the experience was incredibly personally enriching. DH's rather prestigious school got him a job straight out of college supervising experienced employees with the same degree from the local college.


You'll get a better college experience at a small $30K year school than you can at a JC, but yeah the education could be identical for general ed. stuff.That's well put. I wouldn't trade my college experience for anything, but education-wise, it's the same as many (probably most) colleges...... it's possible to get a GREAT education there, but also very easy to waste those years.


Additionally, many CCs are providing other job retraining during the recession, so when you hear about people going back to school for retraining in nursing, medical technology, or another in demand field, they are very likely going to a CC. They should be anyhow. It's ridiculous to go to Strayer or whatever and pay $$$$$$$$$$$ for a nursing degree when your local CC will help you do it for SO MUCH LESS.
We had some women in my college who were adults going back to get a 2nd degree - although at my school it was usually for language or art or something "personally enriching" instead of career-oriented. That's great for them, I guess, but I agree that for adult professional, it's really so much smarter to go to somewhere like a CC, particularly for fields that emphasize adult-learning techniques rather than academic study.

[jenmcadams]

Ok, one final post.

Schools that (I can think of offhand) currently provide free tuition (ie, no loans all grants) to kids that get in if need is demonstrated. Some have a threshold for combined family income before filling in the gap for the EFC, others don't. Financial Aid is actually very complicated, but this is a private program offered by these institutions.

Harvard
Princeton
Swarthmore
Bryn Mawr
Haverford
Davidson (I believe they were, in fact, the first)

This became a huge, huge HUGE trend right before the economy went into the toilet and most of the schools that can afford to do this have massive endowments.

There are a bunch of others...Claremont McKenna comes to mind...

[Puddy73]

But I had no interest in an Ivy school and I honestly hope my kids don't want to go to an Ivy. They are $$$$$, I don't think the education is that much better (IMO) and I don't want my kids to carry that debt burden into their early professional lives. I think you can get an amazing education at any college and it's mainly what you put into it.

A "top" school and a "good" education and "success" mean very different things to different people.

I agree. In my former BigLaw career an Ivy degree was definitely a status symbol BUT once you are out of school for a few years it really doesn't matter that much.

[michellerw]

There are a bunch of others...Claremont McKenna comes to mind...

I mostly know of the Northeastern SLACs that do this and the ones that all jumped on the bandwagon at the same time about a year or two ago, but I know there are so many more schools that do this. It's really an amazing thing and it makes a good college education so much more accessible for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

[codex57]

I agree. In my former BigLaw career an Ivy degree was definitely a status symbol BUT once you are out of school for a few years it really doesn't matter that much.

Do you think it helped you get that BigLaw job in the first place? Give you an edge in landing that interview or position?

[egoldber]

Frankly, I find the idea that you can't have an enriching college experience anywhere but an Ivy or a small liberal arts college to be pretty insulting. No one has said that here, but it's the vibe I'm getting. I simply do not believe it.

The reality is most kids do NOT have their pick of schools. They will have to base their college choice on a mix of where they get in, parental ability to pay and school FA generosity. I couldn't have gone to my state school unless I had had a full academic scholarship AND need based FA. My DDs will have more of a choice than that. But DH and I are not planning to pay Harvard level costs for college. We can't do that and have a meaningful retirement. If my kids get in and get full FA, well more power to them.

[codex57]

I think it was more people defending top schools after someone mentioned the constant stream of articles where various people say CCs are just as good as elite schools.

I, for one, went to state schools. Shoot, even my high school was public. I'm not defending Ivies to justify me paying to attend there cuz I never went.

[jenmcadams]

Do you think it helped you get that BigLaw job in the first place? Give you an edge in landing that interview or position?

I will say that where you went to school, both undergrad and grad, makes a huge difference in management consulting. I was on the hiring committee at our firm for years and we rarely hired anyone who wasn't from a target school. We knew that we missed great candidates by rarely interviewing (much less hiring) students who came from non-target schools, but it truly was a time/yield analysis. We knew that our pool of qualified candidates was large at our target schools and we didn't have the time to sift through the 1500+ resumes we got from non-target schools for our analyst program (post-bachelors position) when we always found great candidates at places like Stanford, UCLA and the Claremont Colleges (I worked in the west coast office of a top firm). In consulting, pure brain power/analytical ability was as important as undergraduate degree (as evidenced by the fact that a lot of hires were pure math/science types and not business/econ focused) and firms felt like students at these schools were in essence pre-screened. My understanding from friends in Big Law is that your alma mater is equally important (at least for that initial interview/offer).

My dad worked for the federal government (CSU Humboldt BS) and my mom worked as a teacher's aid and never finished her BA. None of us had any idea what advantages a prestigious degree would give me. I still thank my lucky stars that I went to a small liberal arts college instead of Cal or UCR/UCLA Med School programs I was accepted into because my small school gave me opportunities I don't think I would have had at a bigger school...from the fact that professors knew me and were able to write effective letters of rec that got me internships at national laboratories to the fact that the career office was able to advise me on what options were available when I decided not to pursue the career in research science that I had been preparing for. I think for me, having a little more guidance was helpful and while I'm sure I would have been successful at a bigger school, I'm glad I had the opportunity to go somewhere small and I would encourage my kids to go to a smaller school if it makes sense for them.

[zany]

i think the trend is due to plenty of people who graduated from non-ivies who see they are doign just as well as ivy grads.

1. i went to a state school and got a job straight out of college along with people who went to MIT (kinda like an ivy in my field).
in some cases a namebrand school might help you get your first job but after your 1st job nobody really cares where you went and they mostly look at your experience. (from my experience)

obviously some majors are a little less... 'practical (?)' than others because some fields are hard to find jobs that are well paying - maybe in those fields the name brand schools help more - i don't know about that stuff, as my major was technical it seemed to not matter.

2. our kids will go to the same state school my husb& i went to!! that's what we call our retirement plan :)
as long as we keep our jobs as planned our kids won't qualify for any FA. (i was really smart back in the day and got into CMU which i consider a name-brand in my field, and the scholarship packages that they and the other expensive schools i applied to offered me barely put a dent in their huge prices, which is how i decided to go to state school. i wasn't thrilled to go there at first but soon loved it.)

3. i just find it insane how much more some schools cost. even if parents can afford them... to me it's just not worth it.

[egoldber]

The OP asked about people who don't think Ivy schools are all that. There were several replies in the "oh you know they really want Ivies, they are just jealous" vein. The reality is that not everyone wants or needs an Ivy.

If you want to teach elementary school, do you need to go to Harvard? If you want to be an engineer, do you need to go to Harvard? If you want to be a social worker, do you need to go to Harvard? If you want to be a statistician, do you need to go to Harvard? ;) No, and in fact, it's a detriment in many cases, as someone pointed out. I do think there are a few specific career paths where having that Harvard/big name school is probably necessary (or at least highly advantageous): BigLaw, politics, executive management and I'm sure there are others. But if none of those are a goal for you, then IMO it's not worth the money.

[mamicka]

Frankly, I find the idea that you can't have an enriching college experience anywhere but an Ivy or a small liberal arts college to be pretty insulting. No one has said that here, but it's the vibe I'm getting. I simply do not believe it.

:yeahthat:

I will actively discourage my kids from attending any Ivy or other school which has such an elitist/prestigious reputation. Believe me, it has nothing to do with sour grapes. That is so far away from how we define success I honestly cringe at the thought. That isn't the kind of environment I want for my kids *ever*. If they choose it they'll have to pay for it & I'll love them anyway. :D

You can get a great education anywhere, depending on your field of study & your personal dedication. That doesn't mean that CC is the same as "top school" education. It isn't.

[jenmcadams]

Frankly, I find the idea that you can't have an enriching college experience anywhere but an Ivy or a small liberal arts college to be pretty insulting. No one has said that here, but it's the vibe I'm getting. I simply do not believe it.

The reality is most kids do NOT have their pick of schools. They will have to base their college choice on a mix of where they get in, parental ability to pay and school FA generosity. I couldn't have gone to my state school unless I had had a full academic scholarship AND need based FA. My DDs will have more of a choice than that. But DH and I are not planning to pay Harvard level costs for college. We can't do that and have a meaningful retirement. If my kids get in and get full FA, well more power to them.

Totally didn't mean to say that...sorry if my posts come across that way. I just think people sometimes downplay the benefits of some Ivies/Liberal Arts Colleges and those benefits do exist. You often hear people say they can't believe people are willing to pay private school tuition for college because XX (State school, CCs, etc.) are just as good. I do believe the educational content and even some professors are not necessarily better at the more "elite" schools, but there are real benefits and real ways these schools could be worth the tuition for some people. I was lucky that attending my undergrad liberal arts college was actually cheaper than going to my UC alternatives. This was due to a combination of need-based and merit based aid. Hopefully my kids will qualify for some merit aid, but I highly doubt they'll qualify for any financial aid. I hope we're in a position to give my DC the college experience that they want/have earned whether that's an Ivy, a liberal arts college, a CC or a trade school, but right now we're behind on being ready for helping with all of those options, so we'll have to have a conversation with our kids early in high school about what the financial realities are that point.

In recent years I have worked with some amazingly talented, bright colleagues who went to state schools, but I've also had the experience earlier in my career of working in an industry where where you went to school is important to get your foot in the door. In these industries, your alma mater can make or break you in terms of getting a job in the first place. I mentioned this an earlier thread in this post too, but I honestly think it was easier for me to get to know my professors and get great letters of rec for internships, etc. because there weren't 500 students in my section of OChem. This is also largely why my small liberal arts college with a stronger emphasis on business and politics than science has a 100% medical school acceptance rate for the students who apply. The professors know the students well and help guide them through the process.

[JBaxter]

Ivy league school are out of our financial ability. We would not be classified as financial need. Logan actually just started to apply to colleges and I was rather proud of the fact he researched all the state schools with his program of interest then slected the top scoring schools. Interesting that the school he selected has a better rating than Johns Hopkins and costs MUCH less.

An Ivy league school never entered his mind.

[wellyes]

I think it was more people defending top schools after someone mentioned the constant stream of articles where various people say CCs are just as good as elite schools.

Yes - not that you can't have an enriching experience at a CC, but that private college aren't just about wasting money and being a snob.


I will actively discourage my kids from attending any Ivy or other school which has such an elitist/prestigious reputation. Believe me, it has nothing to do with sour grapes. That is so far away from how we define success I honestly cringe at the thought. That isn't the kind of environment I want for my kids *ever*. If they choose it they'll have to pay for it & I'll love them anyway. :D

I dunno, I think it's important to keep an open mind. I think that as parents, we only have a limited degree of control over the kind of kids we end up with :). Having an Ivy as a parental goal has almost certainly caused more heartache than good in this world. On the other hand, my parents were absolutely baffled to have a son -- my older brother -- who really did think doing math was relaxing and physics was super fun. He was best served the most challenging school that would accept him.

[JBaxter]

Ivy league school are out of our financial ability. We would not be classified as financial need. Logan actually just started to apply to colleges and I was rather proud of the fact he researched all the state schools with his program of interest then slected the top scoring schools. Interesting that the school he selected has a better rating than Johns Hopkins and costs MUCH less.

An Ivy league school never entered his mind.

[egoldber]

I can't imagine asking a prof who taught a large lecture class to write a letter of recommendation. But in the upper division, most students take much smaller classes, even in large state schools. My letters of recommendation for grad school were written by the professors of my smaller, advanced math classes, not the calculus series.

I do agree that having a degree from a particular name brand school can open doors. But not everyone wants to knock on those doors. :) And there are doors that Harvard won't open. And I just think that for most people, in most careers, having a degree from UVA vs a place like Harvard is not a detriment.

If someone wants a degree from Harvard or any other big name school or SLAC, well good for them. Just because someone doesn't, does NOT mean they are a slacker or will not have an enriching college experience.

I also think there are many people for whom community college is the best choice. Is it the same as Harvard? Well, no. But if you want a career that a community college offers, then it's a fine choice and there are enriching experiences to be had. And there are MANY MANY people in this country who aspire to a community college education and for whom it would break the cycle of poverty and be life changing in a way that going to Harvard is not.

[mamicka]

I dunno, I think it's important to keep an open mind. I think that as parents, we only have a limited degree of control over the kind of kids we end up with :).

I agree. They ultimately get to decide what they want for themselves & their lives but I can hope & guide them according to my ideals. I consider it part of my job as their mother. I will love them regardless but their choices might disappoint me.

[Ceepa]

There are those who want to put themselves on a professional track that doesn't weigh names and reputations of colleges and there are those who do. And for those people, an Ivy education makes a difference.

DH and I will support our kids no matter what, and if they select an Ivy, then we'll encourage and support them to the best of our abilities.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

If you want to be an engineer, do you need to go to Harvard?

As an engineer, the idea of going to an Ivy is a bit perplexing. I'm not even sure Harvard has engineering. Oh wait, I just looked it up, they do. I've never met anyone who went to Harvard in my field. I do know some guys who went to Princeton, one coworker and one from grad school. It didn't seem to make much of a difference. We have the same job now. :)

Part of being engineers, my DH and I are always aware of "price performance" and college is no exception. I went to state schools, so maybe lacking the prestige of an Ivy, but both were in top 5 in my major, which no Ivy is. DH went to Cornell to start and then transferred home to state school as he was homesick. We went to grad school together at one of the very top schools for our field (Cal). We believe it may have been easier for us to stand out as undergrads at our large state public schools. We were both in the top few students in our majors and were able to know the professors and have opportunities that may have been harder to have in a situation where we were average, I'm guessing.

That said, I really don't believe every school is the same. I have another coworker who is always talking about his doctorate ... from a school I have never heard of.

[smilequeen]

It's not a goal for my children. I went to two top 20 schools. The first one, I did a year, absolutely HATED it, and switched to a great, but not top 20 school. There I was happy, graduated in the top 10% of my class, and had my choice of grad schools. The second, grad school, I was very happy at.

DH got into Harvard but went to U of Toronto. That's a great school and was a hell of a lot cheaper for him. He then went to the same grad school as I did. It's not Harvard, but it was one of the absolute best for our field.

I want my children to go to a school where they will be happy and successful, no matter what that means. If it's Harvard, great. If it's Missouri, great. If it's U of T, double great...they are dual citizens and that would save us a lot of college money...

I REALLY don't think the school matter except for a few certain professions that honestly I hope my children don't pick (like Big Law...not a life I want for my children, they can do better financially and have a better lifestyle doing something else...DH sure does).

The vast majority of highly successful people never went to Ivy League. 98% of people who go to Harvard end up no different than anyone else. I really don't see the point in worrying so much about the status. And I'm not jealous. I have my status. Do you think anyone cares? No. Not even me.

[dcmom2b3]

The reality is that not everyone wants or needs an Ivy.

If you want to teach elementary school, do you need to go to Harvard?

Beth, I see your point. But it's difficult for me to use that way of thinking as a guideline for future action because how many H.S. juniors know what they want to be when they grow up? I certainly didn't. I sometimes have the sense, too, that college these days is merely preparation for further study. So how to factor in grad school admissions prospects? I don't know.

My (lower-middle class) parents promised me "wherever you get in, wherever you want to go, we'll find a way to make it happen" with no limitations on my course of study. I was a sensible kid overall, so I think they trusted me to make a smart decision. I hope that DD will be sensible too, and I don't know if I can duplicate my parents' promise, but I'm going to do my best.

[pb&j]

And I just think that for most people, in most careers, having a degree from UVA vs a place like Harvard is not a detriment.

UVA isn't exactly sloppy seconds - it's often ranked as the #1 public university. And for out of staters, the tuition isn't exactly bargain basement, either. UVA's long been considered a "public Ivy."

[egoldber]

Just to clarify, I did not go to UVA LOL! That just happens to be the "local" state university. I went to what many would consider a podunk state school better known for basketball than academics. I have honestly never felt held back in any way in my career for not having a degree from a better school. My masters is from a diferent but also not well known state school, but it is/was top 10 in my field and that has served me well. I do think that a post graduate degree from a better school is a good investment. But again, not everyone wants to do that.

And there are PLENTY of people who think schools like UVA are indeed sloppy seconds.

[Sillygirl]

I think within academia, your "pedigree" matters a lot more. I went to a small liberal arts college that is consistently ranked in the top three in the US News & World Report for national colleges, so, very selective and prestigious. I would say I got a good education there, but in many ways it was not the right fit for me. Having that college on my application *definitely* helped when applying for medical school, and my year was the most competitive ever to get into medical school. It also came up a little bit in residency. Now that I'm in private practice, even my medical school doesn't matter very much, and I doubt my college mattered to anyone at all.

[michellerw]

But if you want a career that a community college offers, then it's a fine choice and there are enriching experiences to be had. And there are MANY MANY people in this country who aspire to a community college education and for whom it would break the cycle of poverty and be life changing in a way that going to Harvard is not.

I think our society needs to stop thinking of college -- no matter whether it's a "top college" or not -- as the only choice. It's really not, although studies show that people with more than one year of postsecondary education do make more money over a lifetime (FWIW that tends to even out of course and it's kind of questionable whether my husband's humanities PhD will ever repay itself, but there's also something to be said for doing what you love.)

The College Board does a study every year or so that proves this data out, but the point is that you don't have to get a Masters Degree or a JD or whatever to do well -- you need postsecondary training. My brother has a two year degree (essentially a trade degree) in Culinary Arts from the CIA. He stands to most likely make, in a lifetime, more than I will.

Auto mechanics make an incredible amount of money.

College should be available to anyone who is willing and/or able to go, but every middle class and upper middle class family shouldn't feel it's the only option available to their kids (likewise, working class and poor families need to know college is an option and even a year of CC gives their kids an edge in this world!). I'm actually seeing more and more people in my circle with teenagers in vocational programs for massage therapy, beauty school, etc. these days and I think it's great.

[arivecchi]

The OP asked about people who don't think Ivy schools are all that. There were several replies in the "oh you know they really want Ivies, they are just jealous" vein. The reality is that not everyone wants or needs an Ivy. That was not the intent behind my post. I have just noticed some major backlash against top/pricey schools. I also did not just mean Ivy League schools. Plenty of schools outside the Ivy League are just as good. I just find it interesting that so many people seem to outright discard that option whereas when I was in high school that was pretty much what everyone aspired to. I did not go to an Ivy League college, but did attend an Ivy League grad school. I loved my college experience so much more! My college was a smaller liberal arts school and I throughly enjoyed it. I wonder if the backlash is mostly due to economic reasons. Both DH and I attended some elite schools and I have no idea whether we would ever be able to send our kids there. I also understand that attending such a school is not at all necessary to be succesful in life. However, I must admit I am a bit peeved when people imply that attending such a school is just an elitist whim and that I am a fool for attending. I got that vibe from plenty of posters in Annie's thread.

[michellerw]

And for out of staters, the tuition isn't exactly bargain basement, either. UVA's long been considered a "public Ivy."

It's not much better in state. UVa is barely public, FWIW, drawing less than 18% of its funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Jefferson's University has a long and storied history of being public only when it's convenient to be public. :wink2:

That said, my graduate education, in 1998-2000, cost me less than 10k at UVa (with grants and funding). I couldn't have afforded to go to grad school if I hadn't gone in-state. It's just that the undergrad and professional schools are very, very expensive.

[sste]

I went to an ivy league college and grad school. I think it was more important for me to be in a well-connected and super-stimulating environment than it will be for DS. I was the first person in my family to go to college and so I didn't have any "connections" through family or even a clue of the various things non-blue collar workers did! My grad school in particular is the #1 ranked, very small program in my field (this is an advantage when employers are competing for you), basically enabled me to write my ticket in terms of prestigious jobs and clerkships, and it opened tons of doors for me in academia - - really that degree paid itself off many times over because I wanted a fairly unusual job. Much more than ivy league undergrad.


So, for me, particular ivy league school I went to greatly facilitated an extremely hard to score academic job in my particular field (other fields I think you would be better served non-ivy, think cal-tech).

DS went to a state school and is a doctor and for him it actually increased his chance to get into medical school not going ivy but instead state because of state residency requirements and also the general grade competition.

I won't care for DS unless his list of career options includes something that I know needs a specific educational background and then I will try to help him think through what school will provide what he needs.

[jenandahalf]

My feeling on the subject is that those schools should only be a place to aim for if you intend to study/work in a field that would require such an education level/name recognition. If you want to be a grade school teacher then it's probably not the place for you but if you want to go into a top law firm then maybe it is.

I think people are starting to have more realistic expectations for their kids - they're not all going to be cardiac surgeons or top attorneys and that's ok. And yes I think finances do come into play more - we have every intention of helping our kids through any college they get in to, but chances are we will have to ask them to limit their choices when the time comes.

[brittone2]

You can get a great education anywhere, depending on your field of study & your personal dedication. That doesn't mean that CC is the same as "top school" education. It isn't.


:yeahthat:

I went to a small, private university that was plenty spendy. Not Ivy spendy, but expensive enough. I had a partial academic scholarship, but was also there for 5 years (part of a 5 year combined bachelors/masters program). My parents (very working class) were able to foot most of the bill and I got out with some loans but nothing insane. Some of my college friends (same university) have loans of 100K. Physical therapy pays well, but not *that* well. Paying back that loan amount would certainly have adversely impacted my life...I would not have been able to be a SAHM, etc. (I'm sure many/most of them are happy to be working and not be SAHMs, but I'm thankful I had the option for my individual circumstances).

While a middle class family may get substantial aid at an Ivy, I just am not a believer that it is necessary or always beneficial depending on what career path an individual is following. It isn't sour grapes at all. I think Ivys are a great fit for many people, but I would be perfectly happy (and actively encourage) for my kids to explore other "great fits" for their major and interests that aren't Ivy schools.

I don't think CC is the same experience at all, but there is plenty of area in between CC and Ivy schools ripe for exploring.

My university had a great program in my major. I didn't need to reapply for grad school...as long as I kept my GPA at a certain level along with other requirements, I was automatically admitted into the graduate portion. I found a college with a program in my major that was the best fit for me and for my professional aspirations. I plan to help my kids do the same. I am not sure where that will be, but I will certainly actively encourage them to look at a variety of schools and programs to find the best fit. The "prestige" part of an Ivy in and of itself is not important to me. If my kids have the opportunity and choose that, great. We'll help as much as we can, but it would warrant a serious discussion of pros/cons and what mom and dad could realistically do financially to assist and how the decision to take on a certain level of student loans might impact them as adults.

[TwinFoxes]

This has been an interesting thread. I wish we had Harvard alums on the board (or wish they'd speak up) to tell us what their experience was really like. I think a lot of assumptions are being made, both pro and definitely con. Probably a lot is based on what we've seen in popular culture. Someone called Harvard "huge" and I know terms like huge are relative, but there are only 7,000 undergrads at Harvard. Ohio State has around 40,000, now that's huge! Also this assumption that it's only good for certain professional degrees. There are a lot of people in the arts who went there. Yo Yo Ma, Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones and of course Conan O'Brien. Plus tons more (these are ones I just know). When I was a journalist, I had to read background info on people, and a lot of interesting people in all kinds of fields went to Harvard. Ooh I just remembered one that really surprised me: Bonnie Raitt!

I went to a large public university (certainly not Harvard!), but it is also top tier (Berkeley). I've also taken classes at community colleges. Like Codex said, there is no comparison. Community colleges are consistently underfunded. There are a lot of other colleges/universities out there that do a great job. But I do think there is more to certain schools than just a name or rep.

[egoldber]

Also this assumption that it's only good for certain professional degrees.

I'm probably the one you mean. I don't think it's only good for certain professional degrees. My point is that the strategic advantage to attending a school like Harvard is only an advantage for certain professional aspirations, which I think is different. At what point is it worth the price? And of course, you first have to get accepted.

Really though, my only point was that kids (and parents) may have all different kinds of college hopes and dreams and for some that does not include Ivys or elite SLACs.

[kijip]

A small handful of top colleges, including Wellesley, have financial aid packages that eliminate or reduce debt for students. http://www.wellesley.edu/admission/admission/finaidpolicyFAQ.html

So an Ivy/Seven Sister/etc education is not necessarily out of reach or unduly burdensome.

This is true, but applies at most of the biggest schools to low to modest income people. There are those making more than the cap but who may not be able to afford $30-40K plus a year. At Wellesley the no loan thing is for kids from families with incomes under $60K whose parents contribute less than $7000 a year, and limited loans for kids from families with incomes under $100K whose parents can contribute less than $28,000 a year. Which is awesome and Harvard was one of the first schools to make such a commitment. These programs are also fairly new. When I opted to not go to school on the East Coast, these programs did not exist.

[StantonHyde]

Education is EVERYTHING to my family. My parents sacrificed to send my brother and I to really good schools. Stanford for him and Haverford for me. I got an excellent education. I had 40 people in my freshman chem class. My brother had several hundred and a TA who did not speak English. There are no grad students at Haverford so undergrads do the research with the professors. 98% of the people who apply to medical school get in. Basically, it turns out people who want to go to grad school or law school etc. I wouldn't go there for an engineering degree and they don't offer accounting etc. But my parents definitely think I got a better education than my brother. (he's an engineer so Stanford was AWESOME for him!)

We had classes in professors' houses, I had my own (tiny) room for 4 years, and good athletic/library facilities. I had tons of personal attention and I needed that. The education really focused on learning for the love of learning. I am sure that I could have gone to another college that cost less and I would have had similar jobs. But, I got my foot in the door because people knew that I had to have some brain power to have gone to Haverford, I could present well, and I could analyze the bejeebers out of anything--the liberal arts colleges "teach you to think" mantra :thumbsup:

So, yes, my experience was totally worth it for me. I have worked in admissions at different points over the years and what I have always emphasized is that students need to choose the college that works for them. It has to be a good fit. Not everyone will do well at Harvard--I wouldn't have chosen it because it was too big/impersonal and I didn't want to go where they had grad students. My brother did his MS at MIT and didn't like it because there wasn't a "real world" focus. So he went back to Stanford for his PhD. But at MIT he got to work on a robotic arm they used in the space shuttle.

As for going to a CC for 2 years--that doesn't necessarily work if you want to go to a top-notch private school--they often don't take transfers from CCs. I think for state schools, its a no-brainer in the cost department--go to CC and then transfer. CCs also have nursing programs and other career-oriented programs that are less costly than university programs.

Go where you want to go, go to a school that fits you. And yes, there are some great liberal arts colleges that are offering grants to cover the costs of college. Haverford is one of those--as are some others mentioned in the PP. We are saving away and our kids will go where they want to go/they get in. And they will have to have a GPA of 3.0 or better and no social issues (if we get a call about drugs/alcohol from the dean, they will be yanked back home to community college so fast their heads will spin). I don't care what they major in or do with themselves. Once you have a college degree, no one can take that away and you will not be "stuck" in a job when you are 40 because you don't have a degree. As long as my DC are self-sufficient, working in something that is legal (no drug running), and happy, I am fine.

[kijip]

I don't believe that in general community colleges offer the same education as elite private schools but I don't think that is the crux of success for all. I do think that there is more to these schools than their name- their reputation is high for a reason after all.

IME, the quality of instruction in small math classes was perhaps better than lecture hall style public universities. It was widely accepted by the university here that the math classes at my community college were as rigorous if not more because you can't hide from a professor in a 30 seat room as well as a 300 seat hall, to the point that university students would enroll in community college college-level math classes to get better prepared for upper level classes at the university. I tutored students in upper level math from the university who would not have easily passed the calculus series at my community college. If you did not pass the test the professor gave out the first day of his calculus course, you had to drop the class and he was drilling all students every day on the material...whereas you might go a term not really ready to be in a similar class at the university and having never spoken to your professor.

Like I said on the other thread, I went to what was at the time anyways a challenging high school with some high achievers and was accepted to some competitive schools. I decided to stay home (well get my own apartment and work) at the very last minute (I had a dorm assignment and had signed my financial aid papers etc for school in New York), too late to get into our fairly crowded public university for that coming term. I used a scholarship to start at a community college here in Seattle. I stayed for a number of terms because it was cheaper than UW with smaller class sizes and a schedule honed to working people. I don't doubt that working many hours to help support my mom and brother while taking a full load at Seattle Central Community College was not an idyllic, wildly enriching education of my dreams school experience. It was not however the end of the world or like not getting an education at all. It was as rigorous as all of the classes I took at a smaller state University (not UW) and more than sufficient preparation for my later studies at UW. Community college was a choice I made given a set of family expectations, culture, obligations (perceived or real) and it is what it is- neither the best or the worst, good or bad. I even took some very excellent art history courses so it was not all math and science, LOL. I knew students from community college who transferred to top universities- Smith and Stanford being among them. One of the colleges I had been accepted to in high school would have reaccepted me out of community college had I chosen that route- in fact they contacted me numerous times to see where I was in my planning.

But in the end, as a working professional who is now routinely contacted to please apply for this or that position, it makes little difference where I started school or that I went to public college and then university. It is what I have done professionally that opens doors, not the name of the school I went to. I don't think it is "just as good" or "the same" education as the private schools most of my friends went off to, but the 10 year outcome for me is similar or more positive to these same ability high school peers. None of my peers with great private school degrees think less of me, the work I do and in fact are impressed with what I am doing and the organization I work for right now, which is known nationally in my field. Our day to day lives are similar, and I have the big plus of not having any debt which has facilitated other things like homeownership. Those no debt programs were not in place when they went and many are facing the prospect of never being able to be debt free- pretty much anyone who did not get a law, engineering or medical degree and also make a high paying career choice has more debt than they expect to be able to pay off before they are 50. Some of the women feel like they can't afford to have kids, many of the moms I know have deferred their loans or ceased retirement savings to afford even shorter maternity leaves etc. Again, this is what it is, not necessarily a good or a bad thing and I don't know anyone of them who regrets their education. They did not go for the prestige, are not snobs (except for 1 maybe :)) they went for the experience and the awesome educational opportunities.

I don't have any goals for my sons besides them being hard working, self supporting adults who can learn what they need or want to learn when they need or want to learn it. I expect that they will most likely go to college- since we both did, it is more likely. I really don't have any desire for them to go to an Ivy or for them NOT to go to an Ivy...hopefully they will be mature enough to pick a good situation for themselves. I don't look down on people for their education or lack of education. Like Beth, I come from a background where for some of my neighbors a technical certificate from a college in a strip mall that advertises on tv would be a big stepping stone.

[sste]

Just a different perspective but I have wondered if part of the reason Harvard started this debt-free thing was that it fears incrementally losing its cachet as prices skyrocket. Someone mentioned UVA and getting into UVA is really, really hard. It would not surprise me if it is hard or harder as getting into Harvard in another fifteen years. I have professor friends who teach at W&M who are sweating getting their kids into UVA in a big way. They know that the Harvard vs. UVA prestige difference is modest and the Harvard vs. UVA cost difference is massive.

Anyway, I think the most competitive schools - - and thus the most prestigious - - may end up being increasingly the top state schools. Certainly if private tuition keeps on rising at its current rate while national saving remains fairly pathetic.

[kijip]

Just a different perspective but I have wondered if part of the reason Harvard started this debt-free thing was that it fears incrementally losing its cachet as prices skyrocket. Someone mentioned UVA and getting into UVA is really, really hard. It would not surprise me if it is hard or harder as getting into Harvard in another fifteen years. I have professor friends who teach at W&M who are sweating getting their kids into UVA in a big way. They know that the Harvard vs. UVA prestige difference is modest and the Harvard vs. UVA cost difference is massive.

Anyway, I think the most competitive schools - - and thus the most prestigious - - may end up being increasingly the top state schools. Certainly if private tuition keeps on rising at its current rate while national saving remains fairly pathetic.

I think big private schools started it to combat the idea that they were perpetuating unfair class privilege. They are only able to do it due to large endowment funding and some schools have cut back a bit or proposed cutting back on it a bit as their assets lost value. I think legacy admissions have become stricter as well to combat the idea that there are two different bars - one for the very rich and one for everyone else. Without doing something, they were going to become more and more homogenous than they already are class-wise.

[sste]

I think the class diversity is a big part of it but I am jaded and suspicious enough to wonder if an equal or even bigger part of it is the free PR (particularly for the front runners in adopting programs) and strategic planning for the future in terms of competing with elite public schools. The Ivies may perceive that in the upcoming decades they will need to seriously re-think their strategy as they have priced themselves out of the middle class and even upper middle class . . . and their rankings depend on being able to get students with top grades/scores.

[codex57]

Just a different perspective but I have wondered if part of the reason Harvard started this debt-free thing was that it fears incrementally losing its cachet as prices skyrocket. Someone mentioned UVA and getting into UVA is really, really hard. It would not surprise me if it is hard or harder as getting into Harvard in another fifteen years. I have professor friends who teach at W&M who are sweating getting their kids into UVA in a big way. They know that the Harvard vs. UVA prestige difference is modest and the Harvard vs. UVA cost difference is massive.

Anyway, I think the most competitive schools - - and thus the most prestigious - - may end up being increasingly the top state schools. Certainly if private tuition keeps on rising at its current rate while national saving remains fairly pathetic.

I don't think so. The non-Harvards always say that. I've seen them say that for at least 15 yrs now (that's about how long I've been paying attention) It's amusing how far down the line schools say they are "catching up" to the Harvards of the world (Chapman University is the loudmouth around here). Again, the difference in prestige, like statistics, is open to interpretation. At the very top, it gets really hard to separate from the pack, which makes the top ones even more impressive that they're able to do so. Like in a track and field race. In a high school race, the gap between 1st and 4th could be huge. Seconds. Gap narrows dramatically at college level. By the time you hit Olympic level races, the difference is just tenths of a second. Yes, UVA is very hard to get into. Always has been. However, you think Harvard is sitting still waiting to get passed? Since I've been watching, the rankings haven't really changed much at the top. The only exception seems to be UT Austin, which has tanked. I'm assuming that's cuz of a certain law that was passed in Texas.

And no, elite schools aren't for everyone. However, their enrollment numbers reflect that. They aren't massive classes. They take less students than your average state school. They can't serve the entire college population, but what they do, they do extremely well.

And I think everyone understands what you do professionally matters more than your school after a certain time period. However, I've yet to find evidence that going to an elite school doesn't make it a lot easier to get that initial position in which to start your career. This economy is a perfect example. It's a lot harder to get a job when you don't have any experience. Coming from a name school helps that initial hurdle. The networking certainly plays a big part in that too. How much someone "values" that is very subjective of course.

[kijip]

as they have priced themselves out of the middle class and even upper middle class . . . and their rankings depend on being able to get students with top grades/scores.

I see what you are saying- I know families in the top income brackets who would be hard pressed to pay out of pocket for any private school- because of retirement saving needs, because they have several college age children etc.

[kijip]

However, I've yet to find evidence that going to an elite school doesn't make it a lot easier to get that initial position in which to start your career. This economy is a perfect example. It's a lot harder to get a job when you don't have any experience. Coming from a name school helps that initial hurdle. The networking certainly plays a big part in that too. How much someone "values" that is very subjective of course.

Codex, I am interviewing now to hire a part time admin assistant to support me and another co-worker. 1/2 of the job is literally photocopying incoming checks and hand addressing thank you cards. It is not a job one needs a college degree for at all. The pay scale is low. 3 of the people who earnestly applied have recent BIG school degrees, Yale among them. I don't get the picture that big school means rockin' job prospects in this economy. And while we did not screen the elite grads out, we were just as impressed with recent experience and well articulated ability to work with the population we serve etc.

[Fairy]

6+ pages? Really? Ok, well, I haven't read thru them all, but these are my feelings: The bottom line is you don't need a prestigious school. You just need school.

* I went to Illinois State University. Cuz I got in. My grades were average, my ACT was great, my SAT was sucky, my intelligence was high, my application of said intelligence was lazy. I could have gone to other popular schools, but I didn't want to follow half my HS to them. I am proud to be an alumni of ISU, I support them, and they are even better now than they were then. I wouldn't give it up for any other school ever.

* I want my child to have the very best education he can have no matter what he wants to do. If that means an Ivy, BRING IT ON. If that means ISU, then I'm kvelling over here with excitement! If it means some small school I never heard of that is great for him, great! If it means a community college, I'm not going to lie, I'm not thrilled. If he wants to be a mechanic, sorry, he's still going to a 4-year school. And I won't apologize for feeling that way.

* No matter WHERE he goes, I'm proud of him, and I support him, and he can get an enriching education ANYWHERE HE CHOOSES TO APPLY HIMSELF.

* Business consulting firms like have been mentioned here are missing the boat by not hiring from non-target schools, I should know, I work at one, and I got in thru the backdoor. I'm one of the very few in my situation. But this is the way it is at our firms, and I just consider myself lucky.

Again, no, you do not need a prestigious school. You just need school.

[Fairy]

However, I've yet to find evidence that going to an elite school doesn't make it a lot easier to get that initial position in which to start your career. This economy is a perfect example. It's a lot harder to get a job when you don't have any experience. Coming from a name school helps that initial hurdle. The networking certainly plays a big part in that too. How much someone "values" that is very subjective of course.

I think I probably disagree with this. Going to an elite school makes it easier to get into the interview process for the firms targeting elite schools. But that's a meat market, too. There are thousands of graduates from elite schools all wanting those jobs at top tier companies. It doesn't make it easier to get a job, it makes it easier to be eligible for it. And in economies like this one or in over-saturated fields? That's how you get 400 applications for seasonal help at Barnes & Noble where 70% are adults with degrees whom are over-qualified. Which I cite as fact, as my friend just relayed this exact experience to me -- and he did not get the job.

[codex57]

Codex, I am interviewing now to hire a part time admin assistant to support me and another co-worker. 1/2 of the job is literally photocopying incoming checks and hand addressing thank you cards. It is not a job one needs a college degree for at all. 3 of the people who earnestly applied have recent BIG school degrees, Yale among them. I don't get the picture that big school means rockin' job prospects in this economy. And while we did not screen the elite grads out, we were just as impressed with recent experience and well articulated ability to work with the population we serve etc.

I never said it meant rockin' job prospects, especially in this economy. I'm just saying it seems to provide an edge. More for some jobs, like the business consulting ones Fairy was talking about or BigLaw. Less for others. Elite schools offer degrees in things that leave me scratching my head as to why anyone would choose that. But, it's their choice. Just not why I'd go to an elite school for is all. Maybe it's a way to prescreen potential mates, I dunno.

Anyways, if it provides an edge, that's one reason to go. Or eligibility. Same thing. At least you get your shot. I wasn't "eligible" for BigLaw cuz neither my undergrad nor law school was "elite" and I wasn't top of my class and an editor on law review. However, it was first tier so that made me eligible for some other jobs that others weren't. Yeah I had to compete against a ton of people, but I got some advantage purely cuz of the reputation of my school. I may have had the same advantage as lots of other people, but still it was more than an even greater amount.

Yes, maybe some companies miss out on some good candidates cuz they prescreen based on schools. However, with such a huge meat market out there, it's entirely reasonable to whittle down the numbers that way.

And I also backdoored my way into a summer associate position at a BigLaw firm. However, I see little difference in getting in through the connections I had and getting an interview based on the connections of having gone to an "acceptable" school according to the hiring people. They're all just various factors to help you get ahead.

[Fairy]

I never said it meant rockin' job prospects, especially in this economy. I'm just saying it seems to provide an edge. More for some jobs, like the business consulting ones Fairy was talking about or BigLaw. Less for others. Elite schools offer degrees in things that leave me scratching my head as to why anyone would choose that. But, it's their choice. Just not why I'd go to an elite school for is all. Maybe it's a way to prescreen potential mates, I dunno.

I think I know the type of degrees you mean, Codex. However, I think there is a place for those degrees. Mine is in Broadcast Journalism. If only I were prettier and thinner, I would have had a job in news. Even more narrow, how about Art History? Or Archaeology? Or Philosophy? Those are narrow choices for jobs, I agree. But SOMEONE'S gotta do 'em. Then there are the people who are able to have the degree of their choice for the pure joy of having it, and are able to still support themselves. If I read you correctly, you're wondering about who on earth would want to sit on their ass and ponder their philosophy degree all day and expect a self-sustaining life. Not disagreeing with you overall, but there are right people for these degrees.

[codex57]

I think I know the type of degrees you mean, Codex. However, I think there is a place for those degrees. Mine is in Broadcast Journalism. If only I were prettier and thinner, I would have had a job in news. Even more narrow, how about Art History? Or Archaeology? Or Philosophy? Those are narrow choices for jobs, I agree. But SOMEONE'S gotta do 'em. Then there are the people who are able to have the degree of their choice for the pure joy of having it, and are able to still support themselves. If I read you correctly, you're wondering about who on earth would want to sit on their ass and ponder their philosophy degree all day and expect a self-sustaining life. Not disagreeing with you overall, but there are right people for these degrees.

Actually, that's not what I'm thinking of at all. Those positions have very limited openings and an Elite degree is one way of distinguishing yourself from the pack of other applicants. Particularly since you generally need to get a PhD in those areas.

I'm thinking of things like teaching, nursing, etc. Stuff where it makes a lot more sense to do at a CC or someplace a lot cheaper for various reasons. Particularly, I'm thinking of a high school classmate of mine who went to Stanford to become a public school elementary teacher. I can understand becoming a SAHM because you had a family and that's what you decided is best for your family. I just don't see the point in paying $40K/yr to become a public elementary school teacher. Does going to Stanford provide such a bump in the interviews that it trumps Berkeley? I'm just guessing here, but for a public elementary school teacher, I highly doubt it.

[Fairy]

Actually, that's not what I'm thinking of at all. Those positions have very limited openings and an Elite degree is one way of distinguishing yourself from the pack of other applicants. Particularly since you generally need to get a PhD in those areas.

I'm thinking of things like teaching, nursing, etc. Stuff where it makes a lot more sense to do at a CC or someplace a lot cheaper for various reasons. Particularly, I'm thinking of a high school classmate of mine who went to Stanford to become a public school elementary teacher. I can understand becoming a SAHM because you had a family and that's what you decided is best for your family. I just don't see the point in paying $40K/yr to become a public elementary school teacher. Does going to Stanford provide such a bump in the interviews that it trumps Berkeley? I'm just guessing here, but for a public elementary school teacher, I highly doubt it.

Ah. Ok, got it, sorry. I have mixed feelings here. I agree from a fiscal POV, but idealistically, I see validity in the education degree from Stanford. But yes, I do get what you're saying, now.

[citymama]

Actually, that's not what I'm thinking of at all. Those positions have very limited openings and an Elite degree is one way of distinguishing yourself from the pack of other applicants. Particularly since you generally need to get a PhD in those areas.

I'm thinking of things like teaching, nursing, etc. Stuff where it makes a lot more sense to do at a CC or someplace a lot cheaper for various reasons. Particularly, I'm thinking of a high school classmate of mine who went to Stanford to become a public school elementary teacher. I can understand becoming a SAHM because you had a family and that's what you decided is best for your family. I just don't see the point in paying $40K/yr to become a public elementary school teacher. Does going to Stanford provide such a bump in the interviews that it trumps Berkeley? I'm just guessing here, but for a public elementary school teacher, I highly doubt it.

Well, my DH and I both went to Ivy and "top" schools for both undergrad and grad/professional school, and we are working in non-profit jobs when we could be making mucho moolah in the private sector! Sometimes it's about getting a really great education and doing what you want to do, which may not equal making a lot of money. I loved school, all of it, and having an intellectually rigorous education was a big part of why I loved it. Getting a big bucks job later on was not really why I went where I did, and the same with DH.

[citymama]

double post - deleted

[american_mama]

I went to an Ivy for undergrad, not one of the most famous ones. I have not kept up with the admissions scene at any university, not even my alma mater, so most of this thread is a mystery to me. I probably would have been happier at a top liberal arts college (and I do mean a top liberal arts college; I wouldn't have been happy at a place that was just good in my field or just well-known regionally), so I am not hugely defending Ivy's, nor do I think they have a lock on the following benefits.

But some of the things that are good about them are:

* the depth of the university is huge - not just excellent in a few fields, but so many excellent departments, professors, students, and top notch facilities.
* students and professors that came from all over the nation and the world, in large numbers, so that becomes an education in itself.
* highly motivated students who have very high standards for professional success and/or an inner love of learning
* deep traditions, history, and pride in the institution which are cultivated from the day you arrive on campus
* prestige
* a well-connected alumni network: I personally don't think this ever helped me get a job, but everyone at an Ivy hopes that it will and maybe it does for some.

I know little about college and, more to the point, little about tuition today. But at this point, I would want my child to go to a top school, be it Ivy or something comparable, because they have prestige to me, prestige that I think is deserved. Now, if that seems like it would be a bad fit for my child or they didn't want it or I can't afford it, that would change.

My list of benefits is meager but it's late and, as I said, I have no current knowledge of my alma mater to buttress memories from 15 years ago. Many other schools offer these benefits to greater and lesser degrees, and I can certainly understand if some people think none of them are worth spending the extra tutition on. I emerged from undergrad with just the right amount of debt, enough to require some good money management habits but not enough to be debilitating, and maybe I'd have a different take on the worth of the degree if I came out owing tens of thousands of dollars. Then again, I once saw a TV report on students owing huge debt from no-name schools and those graduates were very unhappy, feeling that they'd been sold a bill of goods about the degree and job prospects making the debt worth it. I think that dynamic is and will be a big issue in the future - return on investment and debt load - regardless of type of school.

[TwinFoxes]

I'm probably the one you mean. I don't think it's only good for certain professional degrees. My point is that the strategic advantage to attending a school like Harvard is only an advantage for certain professional aspirations, which I think is different. At what point is it worth the price? And of course, you first have to get accepted.

Really though, my only point was that kids (and parents) may have all different kinds of college hopes and dreams and for some that does not include Ivys or elite SLACs.

Honestly, after eight pages I don't know who I meant! It was more than one post. I was trying to say that even if you don't know what you want to be "when you grow up" Harvard can be beneficial. Harvard grads are conistently doing interesting things. Like I said, when I got background info on people as a journalist Harvard degrees were constantly popping up. I can't imagine that when Matt Damon got accepted he thought "excellent! This is going to help me get that best original screenplay Oscar!" I just think being in that sort of atmosphere spurs people to do well in whatever field they choose.

Obviously not everyone who goes to Harvard will be successful. And I loved my university. But if one (or both!) of my DDs went to Harvard? Happy dance! If they both go to Berkeley? More happy dancing!

[egoldber]

Harvard grads are conistently doing interesting things.

But which came first, Harvard or that drive? I think some people are just wired differently. Frankly, I don't have that drive and I'm OK with that. :) I am doomed to the mediocrity of my upper middle class life, made possible by having a degree from ASU (Average State University). Would going to Harvard have nurtured that drive in me, or does Harvard screen for kids who are like this? A PP said that to get accepted at Harvard, you have to be a proven leader. I suspect there is a lot of truth to that.


However, I've yet to find evidence that going to an elite school doesn't make it a lot easier to get that initial position in which to start your career.

Having hired people and been in on hiring discussions, I can assure you it is NOT always an advantage. For better or worse, there is a sterotype of certain grads. I worked in biotech for many years. We hired people who were MS/PhD chemists, MS/PhD process/chemical engineers and MS/PhD statisticians. Where someone when to school was indeed a consideration. An "ideal" candidate for our line of work (medical device manufacturing company in the SF Bay area) was someone who was educated in the field, yet content to do work that was, honestly, not really leading edge. It was fine work, but manufacturing based and research and development driven by bottom line benefits.

A resume from a candidate with a degree from MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. was viewed with a bit of suspicion. The perception was they would not be happy with the level of work. We were more likely to screen them out in favor of someone with a degree from a CalState or a "lesser" UC and perhaps a year or two of experience in an actual manufacturing company, not a research lab.

Most jobs are not rocket science. Most jobs have some level of drudgery and busy work associated with them, even jobs requiring higher degrees. The last thing we wanted to do as an employer was waste our time and money on candidates who would want to leave for bigger and better things after a year. We wanted people who would basically be content with what we had to offer and would commit to staying for at least 3-5 years. Longer was even better. People who want to get advanced degrees don't always want to do cutting edge, advanced research. There is no shame in that. There is plenty of other work to be done that requires qualified people.

[greenclover]

The problem with CCs is that it's not always filled with the most motivated folks.

I disagree. Some CC students tend to be older and more appreciative of education in general. They also bring a wealth of life experience:)

[jse107]

And yes, IMO, too many people in this country go to four year universities. There are something like 2000 four year degree granting institutions in the United States of America. The USA definitely suffers from the Lake Woebegone Effect -- our children are not and cannot all be the best and the brightest and I do believe that college isn't for everyone and, what's more, it's not the responsibility of the university to provide job training. It's our responsibility as parents to take our kids off the conveyor belt and help them find what fulfills them, makes them happy, and will make them a living as adults.



[/QUOTE]

I couldn't have said it better myself. I work across the beltway for MoCo, another top school system, and I am sometimes appalled at the cookie-cutter approach to life after high school.

I want my children to go to good college that will prepare them for what they desire to do in life, but I also have realized that one's graduate school or internship experiences count for more that just the name on the degree.

[Fairy]

And yes, IMO, too many people in this country go to four year universities. There are something like 2000 four year degree granting institutions in the United States of America. The USA definitely suffers from the Lake Woebegone Effect -- our children are not and cannot all be the best and the brightest and I do believe that college isn't for everyone and, what's more, it's not the responsibility of the university to provide job training. It's our responsibility as parents to take our kids off the conveyor belt and help them find what fulfills them, makes them happy, and will make them a living as adults.

==========

I couldn't have said it better myself. I work across the beltway for MoCo, another top school system, and I am sometimes appalled at the cookie-cutter approach to life after high school.

I want my children to go to good college that will prepare them for what they desire to do in life, but I also have realized that one's graduate school or internship experiences count for more that just the name on the degree.


That would be great if more jobs than not requiring 4-year degrees paid a wage that would allow families of 4 to own property, save for retirement, and send their own kids to college. If what you want to do in life is be a mechanic, ok, you're probably going to make alot of money. But if what you really want to do in life is manage a Starbucks (and I have a friend that does), that's something that you're not going to make $70k doing. And if you want to own a single family home in a market like Chicago AND raise a couple kids AND save for their own college fund AND save for your own retirement, then I just don't see that happening. If I had my way, I'd be an actor right now. Or a historian. But that's not going to sustain what I want in my life, and I see my job as a means to an end, for me that's my nice house in my nice suburb saving for DS's college fund, and my retirement. So I'm happy with my cookie cutter approach to life after HS, even tho I'm not doing what I'd really like to. It's served me well, I'm smarter than your average bear, and I have a good job (so far ... talk to me in a month).

This is not to attack your position, I totally get your position, and in a perfect world, I agree wtih your position! But I just don't find it realistic in today's employer-driven market.

[codex57]

Yeah, I wanna be a teacher, but living in CA (I don't want to leave) and wanting a certain lifestyle... not gonna happen unless I win the lotto. That's a common problem, exemplified by the auto workers. Grow up in high school expecting a certain lifestyle once they graduate high school. No college needed. Maybe that was possible 30 yrs ago, but not anymore. A college degree is now about the equivalent to what a high school degree was 30 yrs ago. If you don't want to go to college, you need realistic expectations of what your earning power will be. Some people have that. Many don't.

[egoldber]

Right now less than a third of Americans have a 4 year degree or higher. So just getting a 4 year degree is what makes the biggest difference in terms of long term employment and income attainment.

ETA: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education.html

[codex57]

So going to a 4 yr college isn't exactly a cookie cutter route then?

[wellyes]

That would be great if more jobs than not requiring 4-year degrees paid a wage that would allow families of 4 to own property, save for retirement, and send their own kids to college. If what you want to do in life is be a mechanic, ok, you're probably going to make alot of money. But if what you really want to do in life is manage a Starbucks (and I have a friend that does), that's something that you're not going to make $70k doing. And if you want to own a single family home in a market like Chicago AND raise a couple kids AND save for their own college fund AND save for your own retirement, then I just don't see that happening. If I had my way, I'd be an actor right now. Or a historian. But that's not going to sustain what I want in my life, and I see my job as a means to an end, for me that's my nice house in my nice suburb saving for DS's college fund, and my retirement. So I'm happy with my cookie cutter approach to life after HS, even tho I'm not doing what I'd really like to. It's served me well, I'm smarter than your average bear, and I have a good job (so far ... talk to me in a month).

Yup. I have a friend whose life goal is based around family , not career. She is a waitress. Lack of career ambition is NOT a character flaw. But now she's in a crappy position cause she has two kids, has to work SOME hours to sustain the family, and honestly cannot afford daycare. So she has to rely on her MIL to watch the kids who she does not get along with. Degree = more career options = more freedom to do what you want with your family.

The other thing is that the massive unemployment we keep hearing about right now skews strongly towards non-college grads. The job market stinks for grads, it's true, but nothing like HS grads - I think the HS grad rate for unemployment is something like 8%+ these days.


So while not everyone is cut out for academia, I think academic or career training post-HS is critical. It doesn't HAVE to be college (master plumbers do as well as doctors, or so I've heard) but skipping college altogether isn't really a good option for most regular kids either.

[egoldber]

That would be great if more jobs than not requiring 4-year degrees paid a wage that would allow families of 4 to own property, save for retirement, and send their own kids to college.

And I think the reality is most people don't have these things.

[brittone2]

While having that 4 year degree may provide some stability and open up career prospects, I struggle with the idea of paying upwards of 40K per year (at today's prices) for certain schools, and wonder how that will impact my children's long term financial stability should they decide that they don't want to become an MD, get a law degree, or pursue a career in academics (which even w/ a PhD in many fields is not all that lucrative, obviously). [eta: because we are currently not planning on financing 4 years for each child at 100% at any school that is 40K per year. If we can afford it when it is time, we will, but we are also going to fund our own retirement, etc. and plan for enough for DC to attend a more moderately priced school. So as of right now, if they would want and or have the opportunity to attend an Ivy or similarly priced university, they would likely be taking on some loans] In certain professions, I think the cost of tuition and loans needed to complete a degree can actually put an individual at a financial disadvantage. As PPs said, even with respect to schools that are generous with aid, there are going to be people who are middle class yet fall into the cavern between qualifying for substantial aid and being able to fully finance 4+ years at 35-40K (or more) per year of education for their children.

[sste]

It may be worth noting that imho some of the jobs that ivy/top schools "position" you for are really not all that great. I was actively recruited into management/business consulting multiple times - - this can be a very interesting job but in the vast majority of these jobs the demands of constant travel are not compatible with family life. For me, they weren't compatible with life period! I also worked at BigLaw jobs. IMHO it is a complete pyramid scheme that takes an unusually docile worker population (and that is one characteristic of top school graduates), works them into the ground, gives them "fake" partner labels to keep them there during their peak mobility years, and then gets rid of them.

This is not to say that there aren't benefits to excellent educational institutions but I am not convinced by some of the "top jobs." In fact, I think they may be something to avoid!

Now, I do love my current job (academia) and in my particular field the ivy I went to is the top placement school. But, if I was going into a different field of academia I would just as likely have gone to a state institution because my goal would have been to work with the most famous and accomplished mentor I could and in many cases these people are at state institutions that are major grant centers.

[LexyLou]

I haven't read all the replies but I don't really think it's that kids are getting "dumber" and 'lazier" I think that we are pushing our children far too hard and they are burning out.

I mean think of the things that kids are doing in 1st grade now! We didn't do that until 3rd grade.

What you have to do/be involved in to get into a top school these days is insane.

To get into UCLA you have to have above a 4.0, be involved in getting grants/new wings of your school/etc, you have to be involved in every extra curricular activity, play sports AND hold a job.

It's RIDICULOUS! I don't blame these kids for being over it! That's far too much stress to be putting on 16 year olds.

I think what they're saying is it's not worth the stress and loss of childhood to get into a top school.

I really hope this shifts before my kids are in school because I hate it, but at the same time, you don't want your kid to be behind so you have to go with the current learning curve/expectations.

It makes me sad.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

. Frankly, I don't have that drive and I'm OK with that. :) I am doomed to the mediocrity of my upper middle class life, ...

I love my mediocre upper middle class life! :D

DH & I often talk about how we don't want to be moving into upper management, that sort of thing. We're very happy with where we are.

***

Does anyone else think higher education is in a bubble? The trend of ever increasing price doesn't seem sustainable in the long term.

I only got out of undergrad 9 years ago and grad 7 and it was very affordable when I went to college (well reguarded state schools for both me & DH, leading to grad school at prestigious state school :p). Now all I hear is doom and gloom and how we need to save a bazillion dollars to send our kids to college.

[C99]

I have mixed feelings about this.

My dad got a NucE degree from USNA and an MBA from U. Chicago. He always pushed me toward somewhat prestigious, usually public E. Coast schools (UVa, William & Mary, GWU, U. Chicago). 20+ years later, I still have that bias that those schools are better. But the reality is that I was not driven enough in high school (or even now) to gain admission into any of these schools. And, even if I had, I would not have fit in with the east-coast elite that dominated them. (I went to George Mason University [hi michellerw!] for a few years and most of my friends eventually transferred to UVa - one of them lived on the Lawn our senior year [And yes, I was totally impressed].)

That said, I'm less impressed by where someone went to school and what degree they hold now than I was 15-20 years ago. It just isn't that relevant (to me) anymore. In my own experience with/in college, I learned that it's not just the name that matters, it's how you feel when you are there. I transferred to UIUC, which was at the time in the top 25 public universities, and I did much better in that environment than I did at GMU. Why? I think it was a combination of things, but attribute it mostly to feeling comfortable socially and culturally, which left me able to concentrate on my studies. I was also older and driven to get as much as I could out of the experience.

Now that I've worked for 15 years and met so many different kinds of people, I've realized that in my field and in the fields of most people I encounter, where they went to school (and what kind of grades they earned) really does not matter. Perhaps the biggest contributing factor to my utter lack of intellectual elitism these days is my husband. He is arguably the smartest person I know; he went to horrible colleges and didn't finish school. You would never know this (and most people don't) if you talked to him.

Like Beth (egoldber), I think there are so many ways to define good education and success. Getting a 4-year degree from an Ivy or elite school just isn't that important to me. I hope my kids go to colleges where they can complete the thinking process/skills required for job success without coming out of school with $100K in student loans. If they want to go to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, I'll do everything I can to encourage and help them meet that goal, but I am not going to push them toward any school (not even my alma mater).

[Nicsmom]

But some of the things that are good about them are:

* the depth of the university is huge - not just excellent in a few fields, but so many excellent departments, professors, students, and top notch facilities.
* students and professors that came from all over the nation and the world, in large numbers, so that becomes an education in itself.
* highly motivated students who have very high standards for professional success and/or an inner love of learning
* deep traditions, history, and pride in the institution which are cultivated from the day you arrive on campus
* prestige
* a well-connected alumni network: I personally don't think this ever helped me get a job, but everyone at an Ivy hopes that it will and maybe it does for some.

Yes to all of the above. I went to an Ivy for graduate school and I was very impressed with the undergrads. I think that if DS has a chance to get into one of these schools (as an undergrad or for graduate school) and we can afford it, I will definitely encourage him to go. I do not think that an Ivy is the only way to get a meaningful education or that it will guarantee professional success. But, having studied also at a very prestigious state university and having taught at a liberal arts college for a few years, I'll say there are some advantages to the Ivy (IMO). The most important for me is the quality and diversity of the students. I am not saying you cannot find extremely bright and motivated students in other universities, or that all students in the Ivies are equally brilliant, but the vast majority of students I met at Yale had VERY high standards and the love of learning that the pp mentions above. I have to say that was not the case in the two other places I mentioned. At Yale I found an intellectual community like no other I have seen, and I was amazed by the intellectual breadth of the undergraduate kids. Also, as the pp says, the variety of backgrounds and the diversity of the student body is truly amazing. I would definitely love my son to be a part of that.

That said, from a practical standpoint, I don't know if it is a good idea. To me, education is much more than a means to get a job, and I want to instill in my son this love of learning. But if he happens to be more practical than his mother and he is thinking of going to an Ivy only to get a good job afterwards, I would warn him that he can probably get more "bang for his buck" at another school.

[MontrealMum]

But, if I was going into a different field of academia I would just as likely have gone to a state institution because my goal would have been to work with the most famous and accomplished mentor I could and in many cases these people are at state institutions that are major grant centers.

This is a very important point. My undergrad degree is from a state school. Much of my graduate education is from the "Harvard of the North", though not all of it. I had no trouble getting accepted to all sorts of programs w/ my BA from a state school. I had the grades and test scores, and great recommendations. In academia it's about the match between what you want to specialize in and the profs in the program you've applied to. That might be an Ivy, and that might be a 2nd tier school.

Not to discount the benefits of an Ivy, but I think, in the end, your college experience is what you make of it. I've know many people to go from my 2nd tier State school (though now I think they're 1st tier) to top law/business/medical schools as well as to have successful careers in academia. One of my very good friends in now on the faculty at Yale.

I have not read this whole thread, but I did note that some posters mentioned that schools have been tending to only accept the upper percentages of applicants. It's something I read about as far back as 10 years ago. So, when UofM starts upping their requirements, those who would have gotten in back in the 80's will now start applying to State...thus bumping the bottom cohort of State applicants who will now have to consider lower tier schools etc. etc. It's happening all over, getting into college - any college - is much more competitive than it was in the 80's/90's when we all attended. This may also account for less stress on attending top schools? IDK, but just a thought.

[citymama]

Yes to all of the above. I went to an Ivy for graduate school and I was very impressed with the undergrads. I think that if DS has a chance to get into one of these schools (as an undergrad or for graduate school) and we can afford it, I will definitely encourage him to go. I do not think that an Ivy is the only way to get a meaningful education or that it will guarantee professional success. But, having studied also at a very prestigious state university and having taught at a liberal arts college for a few years, I'll say there are some advantages to the Ivy (IMO). The most important for me is the quality and diversity of the students. I am not saying you cannot find extremely bright and motivated students in other universities, or that all students in the Ivies are equally brilliant, but the vast majority of students I met at Yale had VERY high standards and the love of learning that the pp mentions above. I have to say that was not the case in the two other places I mentioned. At Yale I found an intellectual community like no other I have seen, and I was amazed by the intellectual breadth of the undergraduate kids. Also, as the pp says, the variety of backgrounds and the diversity of the student body is truly amazing. I would definitely love my son to be a part of that.

That said, from a practical standpoint, I don't know if it is a good idea. To me, education is much more than a means to get a job, and I want to instill in my son this love of learning. But if he happens to be more practical than his mother and he is thinking of going to an Ivy only to get a good job afterwards, I would warn him that he can probably get more "bang for his buck" at another school.

:yeahthat: I couldn't agree more! As a grad student, I too was blown away by the undergrads. at Yale (GWBush and cronies notwithstanding) and the incredible resources available to those students. I went to a terrific school undergrad but I can honestly say there was no comparison to Yale in the student body, professors and sheer resources available. I did get in to Yale undergrad but couldn't afford the tuition. I have no regrets not going there (well, a few when I was younger, but none anymore) in terms of where I've ended up professionally and personally.

I completely agree that if the only reason you want to go to a particular school is the pedigree or stamp, think again. Education is about a lot more than that stamp, and is also about more than the jobs you can land later on.

[Georgia]

I've been lucky to talk to some frank and open high school teachers lately. Kids keep getting dumber/lazier every year (it started when I sat next to a teacher from a nice area grading papers and I was shocked at the crappy test scores). Add in the extra competition/requirements to get into colleges and more kids are giving up. Along with their normally helicopter parents.

I think it's just sour grapes. "Top" college now seems to include any 4 yr college.

Not following your logic here. If kids are getting dumber and lazier it should be getting easier for the smart, motivated kids to get into any college they want. That's clearly not the case.

It's a numbers game. More kids are applying for college and the bigger pool means the most selective schools can be even more so. So kids with great resumes, who would have had a very good chance of getting into Harvard 10-20 years ago, are having to look beyond that top tier today. And, as more of these smart, motivated kids find a good education and career prospects (as well as value) from "lesser" schools it's natural to question how valuable that Harvard degree ever really was. What's considered a top school may have expanded, but it has less to do with sour grapes than supply and demand.

To answer the OP, if people seem less interested in what we understood to be the top schools back in the day I would say it's a matter of them being realistic about their choices in a much more competitive admissions environment along with seeing the benefits of a wider range of schools that their peers have done well at.

[kijip]

That would be great if more jobs than not requiring 4-year degrees paid a wage that would allow families of 4 to own property, save for retirement, and send their own kids to college.

I know plenty of people who have 4 year degrees who can't afford or don't feel they can afford, those things.

Then again, working where I do I know an Ivy PhD who is formerly homeless and people who used to hold aerospace and other jobs and have 4 year degrees who are really struggling- not struggling as in moving to a small apartment and not buying Christmas presents but struggling to find ANY housing and feed their families- so my perception can get skewed. Met a homeless parent and 8 year old Monday. Mom has a 4 year degree. Mom divorced abuser, mom ended up living in her car and now in a transitional shelter. it puts the typical overspending paycheck to paycheck lifestyle of many Americans into perspective. Many Americans are 1-12 months away from not having housing if things played out badly for them.

[Tracey]

I certainly respect what it takes to be accepted and graduate from an Ivy, but I don't think it's necessarily the golden ticket to success. I agree with everyone that there is a definate cost benefit analysis that needs to come into play.

My mother's cousin has a graduate degree from Princeton. She may have more than one; I'm not sure. Anyway, she is a museum curator/ archivist. There is no way she would have the career she has without the prestige of her education. The doors would not have opened. Now keep in mind, she makes good money, but nothing crazy. She is doing what she loves and is passionate about. If that's what takes you to the Ivies, then go for it!

My sister's best friend has an undergrad from Duke and a law degree from the University of Chicago. Unfortunately for her, he experience is in securities. She was let go a year or so ago and still doesn't have a job. When she was working, she make about $150,000 a year. I hate to say it, but big whoop. There are guys in my husband's sales office making almost double that with high school degrees (granted these are older guys with experience). My uncle with his law degree from a state school has made millions.

I guess my point is that I do not have the Ivies as a goal for my daughter. If she does that's great, but I don't think it's a prerequisite to money, power, and success.

[niccig]

We want DS to go to a college that is a good fit, and challenges him. There is a cost benefit analysis and he needs to do something to support himself. I will not force his decision based on money. I was pushed into law school and in Australia it was undergrad. I was 19 and doing constitutional law! I was considering going back now, but my life is different now with DS and like Fairy my job, when I go back to work, will not be doing what I love. It's not my passion. I hope DS finds something he loves and that may dictate college choice.

I don't believe college alone sets you up for success. DH and his friends did same major and same college. Their professional success varies. Some of it is talent and some was being in right place at right time and some is hard work.

[MontrealMum]

My mother's cousin has a graduate degree from Princeton. She may have more than one; I'm not sure. Anyway, she is a museum curator/ archivist. There is no way she would have the career she has without the prestige of her education. The doors would not have opened. Now keep in mind, she makes good money, but nothing crazy. She is doing what she loves and is passionate about. If that's what takes you to the Ivies, then go for it!



Actually, this demonstrates the opposite from the point you're trying to make. It actually shows how very lucky someone with this background would be to find employment in Museum Curation and Archives with a graduate degree from Princeton.

Princeton does not have an ALA-accredited MLIS program, it doesn't have an MLIS program at all. Neither does it offer an Archives program, a cert. or MA in Museum Curation, or Public History. These are all the normal types of degrees/training that most employers in the Information Sciences/Public History fields look for.

This sort of training can come from lower level schools (on the undergraduate level), but it does not matter in terms of employment, as the appropriate degree field is much more important than going to a prestigious university that does not offer the correct program. I would guess that she has a subject grad degree(s) in either History or Art History. Information Science fields stopped hiring people with subject masters w/o additional cert. maaaany years ago.

It really shows how the appropriateness of the training and program to the field being pursued is much more important than just any old degree from a big name school.

[Tracey]

You may be right, I don't know. This is my mother's cousin who is about 60. I know she went to Princeton, I now she has one or two graduate degrees as she was always in school. I also know she's an archivist and is always doing research. I've seen her less that five times in my life, so I don't know a lot of details. I can't imagine her education didn't open doors, but who knows.

[american_mama]

>> I would guess that she has a subject grad degree(s) in either History or Art History. Information Science fields stopped hiring people with subject masters w/o additional cert. maaaany years ago.


Huh? It sounds like you know a lot about information sciences, but maybe the relative is in one of those art history or history subject fields that dont' follow the same requirements as information sciences. Isn't that what you meant by the sentence above? If so, I don't understand why you corrected the original poster so emphatically in the rest of your post.

I have a very good friend who is a museum curator with a master's in art history and, I believe, a master's in museum curatorship, but I am not sure about the latter point. She has gotten jobs at two, perhaps three, different art museums. I believe she has several friends from grad school with only the master's in art history who got jobs in museums of various sorts.

I have a neighbor who is a law school librarian (I know we have another one on the boards too). He has a master's in history and a law degree, but I don't think any additional certification.

[MontrealMum]

I am sorry if I offended you, but that is the reality of the Information Sciences. I entered the discussion with the OP in mind. We are talking about present day college grads and attending college, and the OP wanted to know if the public continues to value a degree from a presigious institution. At the undergraduate level, I have no doubt that that sort of degree can open doors. At the graduate level, which is what Tracy was talking about above - it really depends. While I believe that the big name is helpful in Big Law and Medicine for example, it is not as simple as that. Many fields are more interested in who you trained with, and what sorts of skills you learned - as evinced by possession of a degree from a particular type of program - than where you studied. Big name for the sake of big name at the graduate level w/o also acquiring the appropriate skills from the appropriate, accredited program is not useful, especially in this job market.

I have been reading job postings for 3 years now for Information Science and Public History and I have yet to see one that does not ask for the candidate to have an MLIS from an ALA-accredited institution. It used to be possible quite a few years ago to get a library, archives, or museum job with a subject Master's or Doctorate, but that is not the current situation. All History museum jobs want an MLIS and/or business training. Some Art museums don't, but many do.


It sounds like you know a lot about information sciences, but maybe the relative is in one of those art history or history subject fields that dont' follow the same requirements as information sciences.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this? History and Art History degree granting programs don't follow the same requirements as the information sciences because they are granting degrees in History and Art History and they answer to different professional organizations. They offer courses in History and Art History. *Some* History departments offer archives certs as well, but most of those are in Canada, not the US. Departments of Information Studies grant degrees (the MLIS) in Librarianship, Archives, and Knowledge Management. They offer courses in things like Cataloguing, Collection Development, and Metadata. The programs (History and Info. Sci.) are quite disimilar. I have degrees in both and have worked in both fields.

The poster here that was a law librarian has her MLIS in addition to legal training.

[citymama]

I guess my point is that I do not have the Ivies as a goal for my daughter. If she does that's great, but I don't think it's a prerequisite to money, power, and success.

I know this is not what you meant by this sentence, but I'd like to say for the record that IMO, a good education is not about gaining money, power and success - Mob bosses get this without a high school degree. An education to me is about intellectual stimulation, learning, mind-expansion, new horizons, stretching your brain - which can come from a great school, teachers, and peers, as well as from life experiences. I am not someone who believes that education is just a stepping stone to the next thing.

[Tracey]

I know this is not what you meant by this sentence, but I'd like to say for the record that IMO, a good education is not about gaining money, power and success - Mob bosses get this without a high school degree. An education to me is about intellectual stimulation, learning, mind-expansion, new horizons, stretching your brain - which can come from a great school, teachers, and peers, as well as from life experiences. I am not someone who believes that education is just a stepping stone to the next thing.

I completely agree with you. But I do think that many parents who go to great lengths to get their kids in the "baby Ivies" and who have the Ivies as a goal for their children are very much interested in money and influence. I mean, Palin was raked over the coals for not having an Ivy League education. This is a generalization that naturally doesn't apply to everyone who wants their children at these schools.

[AnnieW625]

I know this is not what you meant by this sentence, but I'd like to say for the record that IMO, a good education is not about gaining money, power and success - Mob bosses get this without a high school degree. An education to me is about intellectual stimulation, learning, mind-expansion, new horizons, stretching your brain - which can come from a great school, teachers, and peers, as well as from life experiences. I am not someone who believes that education is just a stepping stone to the next thing.

:yeahthat: I was a not a business major for this exact reason, even though I know I could've done it. I knew too many people who believed it was business major or bust to get a high paying job (and yes it could be partially true, but it just bugs the you know what out of me to tell everyone to major in business to get a good job). Sure I went to college to get my degree so I could get a good paying job, but I also took classes that interested me. I knew as a communications/television/film major (TV/film at my college was a sliver of communications) I'd either A. have to work a couple of jobs before getting my big break or B. just take the classes and end up working in another field, which is what I did. I have worked more with numbers in the last 10 yrs. than I ever thought was possible for someone who knew the inner workings of television and how to write a screen play. I did home loans for four years, and now in the insurance industry I work with numbers on a daily basis and can balance an account to a T. My current goal before I retire is to eventually become an auditor just to show those that you can get into business without being in a rigid business program, KWIM? Yes it's the hard way, but taking the easy way out isn't always the most rewarding way either:)

(Citymama, I think you are my long lost twin!:))

[Nicsmom]

I know this is not what you meant by this sentence, but I'd like to say for the record that IMO, a good education is not about gaining money, power and success - Mob bosses get this without a high school degree. An education to me is about intellectual stimulation, learning, mind-expansion, new horizons, stretching your brain - which can come from a great school, teachers, and peers, as well as from life experiences. I am not someone who believes that education is just a stepping stone to the next thing.

I completely agree with you. And I am not sure most parents are thinking only about money and success when they send their kids to the Ivies, as a pp said.

[Nicsmom]

I mean, Palin was raked over the coals for not having an Ivy League education.

Really? I think it was more about her attending five different colleges in six years before graduating, and not being an accomplished student. As I remember, the criticism was more about her less than stellar academic credentials than the fact that she did not have an Ivy League education specifically.

But also, if I am wrong and people DID expect her to have an Ivy League education, who says that it is because they believe it to be the only way to achieve power and money? Couldn't it be because it is still the gold standard in education and that is what they expect of our leaders? I do not necessarily agree with this, but I do think that not everyone sees education only as a means of achieving power and money. I certainly hope so.

[brgnmom]

Well, my DH and I both went to Ivy and "top" schools for both undergrad and grad/professional school, and we are working in non-profit jobs when we could be making mucho moolah in the private sector! Sometimes it's about getting a really great education and doing what you want to do, which may not equal making a lot of money. I loved school, all of it, and having an intellectually rigorous education was a big part of why I loved it. Getting a big bucks job later on was not really why I went where I did, and the same with DH.


:yeahthat: I couldn't have stated it any better. I went to Stanford for both undergrad and grad school, and while I'm currently not working outside the home, I do intend to go back to school for further training and return to work in health care. My DH also graduated from Stanford, and we are swamped with student loans. Not all of us who graduated from prestigious schools come from families who can afford them. And not all of us equate success with financial gain.

Personally, I'm thankful that I was able to attend a university and grad school with extremely intelligent professors and bright classmates. The love of learning is a quality that I found many of my classmates to share and it is priceless. In addition, I've learned early on that being happy and passionate about your field of expertise is so much more valuable in the long run than the financial gain. I'd love for my son to be as passionate about school as I was growing up, and I'd like him to strive for a college that he believes is the right place for him to thrive.

[wellyes]

I knew too many people who believed it was business major or bust to get a high paying job (and yes it could be partially true, but it just bugs the you know what out of me to tell everyone to major in business to get a good job).

I've work in HR in a brokerage & I can tell you that the many many many very successful employees & managers do not have business degrees (undergrad). And that our call center & clerical pool is full of business majors. There's no shame in that work, but it is a dead end for many people. The perception is that business is a key to success - but there are so many business majors. A French major who managed a nonprofit on the side is a much more interesting candidate.


I think it was more about her [Sarah Palin] attending five different colleges in six years before graduating, and not being an accomplished student.

Yes, it was transfer after transfer after transfer and the fact that she majored in broadcast journalism... her ambition seemed to be celebrity, not leadership, at least in that stage of her life. Which did not match the level of commitment and accomplishment of Obama or McCain.

[niccig]

I have a very good friend who is a museum curator with a master's in art history and, I believe, a master's in museum curatorship.

I have a neighbor who is a law school librarian (I know we have another one on the boards too). He has a master's in history and a law degree, but I don't think any additional certification.

I was a law librarian at UCLA law school. If you are a law reference librarian, you need a Masters in Library Science/Information Studies AND JD. All the reference librarians were had also passed the bar exam. The librarians that work in other departments, cataloging or circulation didn't have the law degree but they did have the library masters. I agree with Molly that a librarian Needs the Masters to get considered for a job.

I volunteer at a museum and their curators all have PhDs in their subject area. Other positions require Museum Studies masters. I have seen some positions where they want masters in subject area AND masters in museum studies. In their Education department, an education degree can be enough. I do think it's going the way of libraries and they'll require museum studies masters.

I think graduate school will be even more important to our children to be qualified for jobs.

[arivecchi]

Personally, I'm thankful that I was able to attend a university and grad school with extremely intelligent professors and bright classmates. The love of learning is a quality that I found many of my classmates to share and it is priceless. In addition, I've learned early on that being happy and passionate about your field of expertise is so much more valuable in the long run than the financial gain. I'd love for my son to be as passionate about school as I was growing up, and I'd like him to strive for a college that he believes is the right place for him to thrive. :yeahthat: I absolutely agree with this. While I agree with most that attending a top school (not restricting this to Ivies as MIT for example is clearly top notch but not an Ivy) is not necessarily a ticket to a high-paying job, I cannot imagine that you can replicate the educational environment at these schools given the students and professors that are attracted to these schools. In any event, it seems from most of the respones here that those who attended these schools think the experience reflected the hype, while others have varied opinions. This seems to me to be a big shift from when I was in HS and everyone wanted to get in to these schools. Thanks everyone for the very thoughtful debate!