soozievt

This is the first MIT thread I have ever read and I have been on CC for six years. I ventured over here because my daughter is admitted and has chosen to attend MIT for graduate school this coming fall and is very excited as are we.

I just read Ben Golub's post and his description fits my daughter to a T and so if this is accurate, she has found the perfect fit:

My D is currently a senior at Brown University which she has loved. Like when she chose Brown, her choice of MIT is similar in that she cares about how she'll like the school and that it fits what she wants, as well as is challenging. As a college applicant, she never had the thinking of "I must attend an IVY" or anything like that. Prestige is not her motivator. And for CERTAIN she has never thought (nor do I) that the name of the school she attends will have a bearing on her future earnings in her career. She never thought if I attend X college, I may make more money. Never ever. I never have considered that either when thinking of where she might attend college. Getting a "top paying job" some day has never been something she has desired. She does desire to have a career in her interest area.

She DID want a school that would challenge her....a good school that fit her selection criteria. While I would agree with sakky on the point that we, her parents, value education and passed that down, that's as far as I agree. What I very much never considered, nor agree with, is sakky's notion that the school she attends may lead to greater career or economic success. I don't think the name of my kid's college is going to earn her economic success. I do think attending college will create greater opportunities. I want her to attend a college that fits what she wants and where others are equally motivated and driven like she is because she thrives and enjoys such an environment. The education itself is worth it to me for the experience itself. Having these degrees will help her in life as a person and hopefully be able to have a good career (not necessarily a high paying one) as well. I don't see a linkage to the name of the school with potential earnings.

While I agree that funding her education is due to our valuing education itself, as well as a chance for a career that is satisfying, I don't think of paying for a particular college over some lesser college in terms of the one college might lead to greater ECONOMIC success. I don't think it that way at all and neither does my kid. Going to college should lead to greater career opportunities and yes, she may meet people in college that may lead to something else. But I don't see a certain college or one of its ilk as leading to more money.

My kids attend top schools for their fields. But my kids' fields are not high paying fields, nor do I (or they) care. They have gone after their interests, are highly motivated and driven and have chosen schools where they can be challenged and where they feel they will enjoy going to school. They didn't pick schools with economic success in mind. Yes, they did pick to go to college in the first place due to a value on being educated and in a greater chance to have a career some day in the fields they wish to pursue. Then, they looked for colleges that fit them, and not for which college may earn them more money some day. I went to grad school at Harvard and I am in a low paying profession as well. My kids are not entering high paid professions either. My kids are exactly like Ben describes....highly motivated, very driven, like to achieve and are passionate about what they do. They are leaders as well. They wanted "good schools" for the experience while there, not for how much they may earn some day. I think they will earn the same no matter which schools they had picked. The part that is different in picking a school is that they picked ones that they really liked that they felt fit them. So, I am glad to read what Ben says about a typical MIT student. I think my D will fit in just right.

sakky wrote:
Again, while I agaree that college can lead to greater career opportunities than not attending college, where I disagree is that a certain college or a prestigious college may not lead to more or better economic opportunities than if one attended a "lesser" college. You also ask if a parent would still pay if it didn't lead to better opportunities....my answer, as a parent of two college kids, is yes, I would pay just for the educational experience itself. It is priceless. An educated mind is worth having. The years at school have been growth opportunities and they have been having great experiences. Second, I would pay the SAME for MIT as I would be willing to pay for "no name" school if my child wanted to attend "no name school."

soozievt

I just read post #15. Huh? Who would pick a major just because it is easier to graduate (going by your assumption) than if in another major? I can't imagine picking a major unless that was my passion! If the tech major is too hard at MIT for someone, then do a tech major at another school! The way you write it sounds like "get a degree at MIT at all costs, even if it is not what you are interested in because then you will be sure to make money!" Wah? I can't relate.

My kids don't pick the easiest way to get a degree. Both have chosen highly demanding programs. They WANT to do the programs out of sheer interest in those fields. Never would it cross their minds to change fields just to get a degree from the prestigious school.

sakky

Thinking about this topic more, let me now add what I think is specific to the point that jessiehl brought up.

Again, you mention the notion of pursuing your childhood dreams. But, along with what jessiehl said, nobody's chidhood dream includes being taunted by others that their desired major isn't "hardcore enough". Nobody dreams of dealing with 'discipline snobs' (as jessiehl put it). Nobody dreams of taking classes, or even entire entire majors, that they don't actually care about, just to prove their 'toughness' (another point that jessiehl brought up).

That's the point that jessiehl and I have been making: a lot of MIT students aren't really pursuing their childhood dreams anyway. Now, to be fair, I am not claiming that this is something specific to MIT; indeed, I know for a fact that it happens at other schools. But it simply demonstrates that the choice between your childhood dream or, say, the Sloan School is really a false choice for many students for the simple fact is plenty of students aren't following their childhood dream anyway.

Ben Golub

sakky -- your many paragraphs do not adduce any arguments. you just repeatedly assert that people at MIT and Caltech are motivated mainly by money, but you're wrong. no matter what their parents think, many of the best students at MIT and caltech genuinely care about becoming great thinkers, and would gladly give up a high-paying job for that.

rigor does matter from a real-world point of view, just not in the blinkered view of it that you have. don't write two more pages .just do a survey.

soozievt

sakky, my kids ARE following their dreams. Their dreams were not particular colleges but particular fields. Sorry it doesn't fit your assumptions.

soozievt

Agree with Ben's #19....my kids care about challenge and rigor and part of picking their respective colleges and grad schools had to do with being challenged in their areas of passion. Again, both are not pursuing high paying fields. Neither did I. I chose grad school at Harvard as it fit what I wanted and it was challenging like I crave. I also pursued a field that was my childhood passion.

mootmom

Ah, I see that soozievt and I have chosen the same passage to respond to.

I am the parent of an MIT student, for whom I am paying full price (and also another child who is a student at a school most CC'ers never heard of). The MIT student just switched into a major that represents his childhood dream but does not pass the usual "rigor" test around MIT. I have always expected my children to continue their education after high school, and honestly I can't recall thinking about their career opportunities after they graduate. I think of the challenges they are faced with in their undergraduate years, and how they learn to rise to meet them. (Academic, social, and personal.) I think of their opportunities to explore new activities, new areas of learning, to stretch their world boundaries. I think of them finding something that lights them from the inside, that moves them to put their energies and efforts into doing something meaningful for themselves and (I hope) the world.

I know full well, 30+ years after finishing college, that there is often no direct correlation between what one studied as an undergrad and what one does in one's long-term career. As an undergrad, I learned how to take a large problem apart into more manageable bits and plan a way to tackle and eventually solve them. I learned discipline, and how well I work under pressure, and how to fit play in around the things I'm required to do. I learned how important it is to stay healthy while putting extreme pressures on myself, and I learned how to deal with many new kinds of people, especially the ones I didn't care for. I learned what I was capable of, how to plumb my creativity and reserves, and how to find meaning in tough situations.

I hope for my children to learn some of the same things during their time as undergrads. I don't care what they come out the other end thinking they'll do: they'll figure out something. And as long as they've learned some of the important things about themselves and applying what they do know to new situations, I'll think they've been successful. I think my student at MIT is learning these things and more.

Short answer: yes, I'd pay for college regardless. And am doing that as we speak.

sakky

Huh indeed? Again the answer is simple - because you will graduate. Let's face it. You don't just go to college just for the sake of going to college. You go to college because you want to graduate and get a degree.

You say that as it that's so easy. Is it? If you go to MIT, try out a technical major, and do poorly, can you really go to another decent school? What decent school is going to take you as a transfer? Your academic record is trashed with bad grades. They won't admit you as a transfer.

Now, true, you can probably transfer to a low-ranked no-name school. But honestly, how many MIT students would really do that, if they could instead just stay and get a relatively easy degree at Sloan?

Wah indeed? I think almost everybody can relate. Graduating with some degree, even in a major you don't really care about, is better than not even graduating at all.

Look at it this way. Be honest. Look at all of the colleges across the country. How many poli-sci majors actually become professional political scientists? How many history majors actually become professional historians? How many sociology majors actually become professional sociologists?

Furthermore, people change their careers all the time. I believe CNN once estimated that the average American changes careers (not just jobs or employers, but entire careers) more than 3 times in a typical lifetime. Hence, it is highly likely that, sometime in your life, you are going to end up in a job that is unrelated to what you studied in college.

Look, nobody is saying that you should major in something you hate. But I think most people are fairly 'promiscuous' in their intellectual tastes. For example, I majored in ChemE. But I had interests in a great many subjects. For example, I also had interests in business, in history, in economics, in political science, and so forth. And of course I could have majored in something similar to ChemE like Chemistry, Materials Science or Physics. I probably would have enjoyed any of these majors.

I seriously doubt that you really are going to find a lot of people, even at MIT, who like one - and only one - subject and hate everything else. Students at MIT are pretty well rounded and have a multitude of interests.

And that's precisely the point I'm making. Sure, if want to pursue a technical major at MIT and can do well in it, then by all means do so. But my question is - what if you don't do well? I am fairly certain that most such people would rather major in Sloan than transfer to some low-ranked school. After all, most MIT people don't hate Sloan.

sakky

No, I never said that they were motivated solely by money. I am saying that they are motivated by career concerns, of which money is one piece.

And besides, like I said, you have the causation confused. You say that MIT and Caltech students care about being great thinkers. But ask yourself - how did they even come to care about this in the first place? In almost all cases, it was because their parents taught them to care about education from a young age. But why did their parents do that?

I'll make the point even more salient. Ben, imagine if your parents never bothered to teach you the value of education, and in fact, taught you that all schooling is just a waste of time and money. What are the chances that you would nonetheless value being a great thinker? What are the chances that you would have gone to Caltech? I am going to go with 0%, and I don't think I will be far off. Your desires - like everybody else's here - are strongly shaped by your parents.

soozievt

Sakky, I have well rounded kids who have a multitude of interests but they would major in what they wanted to major in whether it was the hardest major or not. They would not change majors to an easier track just to graduate. I agree that many adults have careers in something they did not major in! But that is not the point. My kids' aim was not simply to graduate. They also want to be immersed in their areas of interest. One of my kids who is a junior in college is in a specialized professional degree program that she had to be admitted directly into. It is very very very intense. She goes to school ALL day and has requirements every night and weekend. If she didn't love it, she wouldn't do it. She would not pick an easier major, however, just to graduate from that school. Yes, graduating is important. But if a major is too hard, then there are many alternatives. But I just know my kids and they would persist in the major no matter how difficult because that is their area of passion.

The reasoning you give of switching to Sloan because it is relatively easier is NOTHING that would remotely cross my kids' minds. They'd rise to the challenge in their area of interest. If they could not cut it at that college, I imagine going to another one would have been better, not changing fields. Changing fields makes sense if your heart is not in the current one. And to be perfectly honest, I cannot imagine my kids doing poorly in college. They are just too driven, and interested in what they are doing and they have high standards for themselves. So, I guess I can't relate to the situation you presented. There is no way they would switch to Sloan (or the equivalent at their schools) because it was "easier". My kids have NEVER chosen the easy way. To the contrary, they are the type of people who have chosen HARDER paths due to sheer desire in those areas. They surely could have picked way less demanding fields of study.

Ben Golub

i don't know where this debate went off to. sakky was saying that caring about rigor in education is like caring about having the nicest pom-poms on the cheerleading team -- purely a social fad driven by peer pressure. i was saying that this is insane -- that many MIT students genuinely care more about getting a serious education than a high paying job. i think sakky has fundamental axioms that prevent him from entertaining this possibility.

btw, no serious labor economist disagrees that getting a ph.d. is a serious net loss in terms of lifetime income, even accounting for consulting income. nevertheless, here i am. i'm getting a ph.d. from a business school, so maybe you'll say i can still make a lot of money. how about my friends getting ph.d.s in completely abstruse math or in greek literature. are they motivated by career concerns too? your theory of the world fails to explain many phenomena.

soozievt

sakky, your argument about parents valuing education....doesn't match with your conclusion. For example, mootmom values education. One of her kids goes to MIT and one goes to a school many have not heard of. I believe mootmom values the education at both colleges for both of her kids. Speaking for myself, I would have valued and paid the same for the education of my kids no matter which school they had picked....Podunk, Ivy, MIT, no name U. I highly value education. But it doesn't matter to me which school my kids attend. I only want them to be happy with their chosen schools and for that, I am ever so grateful that they picked the perfect schools for them. Their experiences have been invaluable and worth every penny of debt that I am now in to make this happen for them.

collegealum314

^^sakky, money may be the motivation of some MIT parents that are poor, but I think it is a really inaccurate generalization. I know it wasn't true in my family.

soozievt

Ben, I agree....my kids cared about rigor/challenge in selecting their colleges and grad schools....it was one of their selection criteria. How much money they could earn if they attended X college as opposed to Y college was nothing that remotely crossed their (or my) minds!

sakky

First off, I think you invalidated your own answer. Consider your own quotes, which I reprint below:

As an undergrad, I learned how to take a large problem apart into more manageable bits and plan a way to tackle and eventually solve them. I learned discipline, and how well I work under pressure, and how to fit play in around the things I'm required to do. I learned how important it is to stay healthy while putting extreme pressures on myself, and I learned how to deal with many new kinds of people, especially the ones I didn't care for. I learned what I was capable of, how to plumb my creativity and reserves, and how to find meaning in tough situations.

...as long as they've learned some of the important things about themselves and applying what they do know to new situations, I'll think they've been successful

Think about what those quotes mean. They all have to do with increasing one's future career success, right? The ability to solve problems, the ability to work under pressure, the ability to apply what they know to new situations, etc. etc.: these are all skills that are directly applicable to career success. And that is my point: parents are willing to pay because they believe that college - by whatever mechanism - enhances their kid's future career success.

What I am talking about is a situation where colleges did NOT enhance those skills (or at least, where parents don't BELIEVE that those skills are enhanced). In other words, what if you thought that college did NOT improve one's ability to solve problems, to improve one's ability to work under pressure, to work in a disciplined fashion, to apply what you know to new situations. Would you still pay? I think the answer is clearly no.