Gasdoc

What's amazing is that all this talk and worry about prestige is for a UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE that in the end NOBODY will care about. These kids who "settled" will do just fine. In fact, many who frequent these boards will be working for THEM someday.

deprofundis

You know if you get into the wrong kindergarten you're doomed...

deprofundis

It's important, where you go for an undergraduate degree. I didn't mean it about kindergarten, obviously, but each stage after high school matters.

Grcxx3

Wow! Until reading this thread I had no idea how miserable and worthless my life must be....having gotten my 2 degrees from lowly state universities.

Pea

"Stanford is a once in a lifetime opportunity and turning it down for a school like UT Austin is wholly irresponsible on part of the individual."

I know someone who got into Stanford this year and got no financial aid. His parents can't afford to help him so he is going to make a go of it on his own. I'll tell you what is irresponsible, Stanford not giving one dime to a middle class family with extenuating financial circumstances, (medical).

Pizzagirl

Of course; you're quite correct. But the thing is, they don't word it as "can you tell me which schools are excellent / excellent in XYZ field?" They word it as "can you tell me which of these schools are most prestigious?"

collegehelp

As a general rule, you should attend a college where you are in the bottom half of the class based on SATs. If you get into a reach school, you should attend. Otherwise, you are selling yourself short. You will grow more at a school where you are in the bottom half of the class.

Tyler09

^That depends entirely on the individual. Whether or not YOU would be selling yourself short, other people may strive where they are at the top of the class; receiving the most attention from professors and priority access to resources.

scottaa

So are half the students in the Ivy League selling themselves short? You standard makes no sense.

There is no "best" school. There is only the best schools for you.

2bizee

Going to a school where you are in the bottom 25% may work to motivate some students. Other students would be constantly demoralized and defeated. Once again, we are back to the concept of "fit". What is the best environment for that individual student to learn and thrive?

Grcxx3

<<There is no "best" school. There is only the best schools for you. >>

I so agree. It took me a while to convince DH, but he's on board with it now.

DougBetsy

OP, are you certain all those impressive kids you refer in post #1 actually GOT INTO the prestigious schools?

Could it be possible that they might have been [GASP] rejected?

DunninLA

ring_of_fire wrote:
"I agree with the above poster. Putting finances aside, would you rather go to UT Austin or Stanford? It's not even a comparison. You're selling yourself short by going to a "lesser" school and not fulfilling your academic potential."
--------------

ROF, may I conclude you do not actually attend Stanford? hehehe

Look, I attended Stanford back in the Pleistocene era. My first choice was UCLA. I reasoned that on balance -- finances, location, non-profit interests available specifically in LA -- tipped the decision in UCLA's favor. My parents disagreed, and a compromise was reached in which I would attend Stanford for one year, then transfer to UCLA if I still felt the same way.

I did, and I did.

Today, that financial part of that decision makes a lot of sense as my parents do not have the savings buffer they thought they would (life happens), and the tuition which they saved (in today's dollars, $110,000), and room/board they saved by my living with two roommates in an inexpensive 1 bedroom apt. and eating a lot of rich (another $20,000 in today's dollars) really makes a significant differnce to their ability to enjoy retirement all these years later.

I graduated debt free, worked in non-profit for 11 years, then got my MBA at UCLA. In my case I believe UCLA was the right choice, and would have been from the beginning. It all worked out with the transfer.

You should read the book Harvard Schmarvard sometime. I don't agree with some of the author's conclusions, of course, but the majority of his position is right on.

"... not fulfilling your academic potential" -- here is where you run into a sand bar. My undergrad interest was in Linguistics, in particular phonetics and Field Methods. Unbeknownst to me at the time, transferring to UCLA actually gave me the opportunity to work in class and in research with the world's foremost phonetics researcher, Peter Ladefoged. In other areas of Linguistics, I learned from Victoria Fromkin, Pam Munro (Chickasaw), and others in classes with both undergrad and grad students. In my field, UCLA was actually more prestigious.

DunninLA

collegehelp wrote:
"As a general rule, you should attend a college where you are in the bottom half of the class based on SATs. If you get into a reach school, you should attend. Otherwise, you are selling yourself short. You will grow more at a school where you are in the bottom half of the class. "
----------------------------------

Can't agree with you there collegehelp. Some people perform better when following and attempting to catch up, others when leading. Some high performers fold like paper when confronted with underperformance for the first time relative to their peers.

People are not machines. Emotions play a huge role in performance. Some should ONLY attend a school in which they are in the top half, or even top quartile. You are right that others peform better under the pressure of trying to catch up to the higher performers.

There is no general rule about whether top half or bottom half is a better choice.

Schmaltz

Choosing a college is much more like picking a boyfriend/girlfriend than it is like picking a mutual fund. LOTS of factors go into which person strikes one's fancy, and you can't necessarily reduce all of those factors to nice neat statistics.