klf1120

My choice came down to the location of the school, the size, and academics. I also went with my gut feeling when I went and visted schools as to if it felt right.

RodLo

Good vibes...point blank.

You could go to the most prestigious, highly rated, yada yada yada...college in the nation and still be completely miserable. If you don't feel comfortable, don't like the campus, and aren't happy with the student body...well, then was it really worth it?

In my opinion, I'd rather go to a lesser-known, less prestigious school that I feel comfortable at and *LOVE*. But hey, that's just me.

Really, some of you on here worry WAY too much about a school's name than what's really your right fit.

Zella

I was surprised how many people voted "Good vibes" (I was one of them) - especially in this forum, where prestige means everything.

stewie314

Yeah, I mean, come on, what have you got against Harvard, Enjoipainball? I mean yes, it's overated, by a lot, but it's still a great school in many respects, and there are a ton of extraordinary bright people who go there.

ohhhhhh....did someone get rejected?

firewalker

i dont think there is any "most important factor" in selecting a college, it's really a mixture of many things; a holistic sense

eviltwin3029

Uber, prestige doesn't mean anything. After you have a job and are in the real world, no one could care less where you went. When you go to a work force, a guy from Penn State could very well be working next to a guy from Stanford.

aussie_steve

184.73% of people voted in this poll.... hmmm I think some people are unable to decide there most important factor.

WealthOfInformation

Statistics and recent research has shown that 1) distance from home and 2) cost are the most important factors.

AcceptedAlready

For the avg applicant: Yes
For the avg CC applicant: It's about prestige and costs(in-state?)

"Uber, prestige doesn't mean anything. After you have a job and are in the real world, no one could care less where you went. When you go to a work force, a guy from Penn State could very well be working next to a guy from Stanford."

Yea but you can bet your bottom that there would be more guys from stanford-type schools working at top firms than guys from penn state type schools.

Even for graduate school, top schools are considered "feeders". I'm not saying at all you can't get into good jobs or graduate schools from Penn state type schools, just that it may be harder (less chances) than if you went to a Stanford-type school.

PS: Just like how a 95 from Stuy High School in NY or Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia is worth more than a 95 from a random HS.

DianeR

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

In other words, this study indicates that the difference in earnings for graduates of different types of schools just reflects a difference in their average abilities. People good enough to get into an elite school -- even if they don't go there - do better.

I haven't read about any studies about graduate schools. But I have heard any number of people on CC with experience in this area say that one's undergraduate school is fairly irrelevant to the admission process. Far more important, apparently, are grades, test scores, recommendations, research, personal statements, etc. Of course, people at elite schools may on average tend to do better in these categories. But this wouldn't be because of their school.

Now if a very selective school has a better program in a particular field, that would be a different matter.

sakky

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

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

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

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

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

DianeR

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

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

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

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

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

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

AcceptedAlready

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



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

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

If you want to delude yourself into thinking so, then go ahead.

sakky

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

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


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

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

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

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

DianeR

Well, then, come up with a better study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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