I suppose my question is a bit subversive, especially on a site like CC. Sure, Princeton (#1 on USNews) will give you connections to movers and shakers, bragging rights, and a fancy diploma that’ll get you a job interview, but is it actually “better” than USC (#23) or UCLA (#24)? Of course, these schools are very different in culture and people, but I’m asking whether there’s an actual difference in the value of the educational and life experience for bright, motivated students at the nation’s top 25-ish universities.
Considering the way that (usually upper-middle or upper class) students and parents worship prestige, one might be led to believe that you’re missing out on something if you go to a prestigious #20-25 university instead of a super-prestigious #1-5 one, though Stanford (#5) and UVA (#24) are both in the small cadre of elite American universities.
I used the USNews rankings as a crude measure of general prestige, though places like Georgetown and Cal Berkeley (both #20) have more “wow” than some higher-ranked schools like Rice (#15) and Wash U (#19).
There are probably hundreds of threads about topics like this on this forum…with varying opinions.
I guess my question is…why do you want to know?
Here is my opinion. These are all excellent colleges. Some folks don’t want to go to college in NJ. Some folks can’t afford to pay for Princeton. Some folks want to major in things Princeton doesn’t offer. So…it doesn’t matter that it’s number one. It would not be considered by students who don’t want to go there for any number of reasons.
Our kids miraculously chose colleges without ever seeing or reading a USNews Ranking. They had NO IDEA the rankings of their colleges…when they applied and matriculated. TBH, they made a list of characteristics and criteria for colleges…and ranking was not on their list. Both found excellent colleges…and did well.
We are upper middle class, and prestige and dream school notions were not part of our college thinking…students or parents.
And for the record…we live in New England which is the epicenter for the Ivies.
USC and UCLA will give connections a thousand times more, and a thousand times more valuable, than any school besides NYU for film/TV majors.
[QUOTE=""]
Is a Princeton education intrinsically more valuable than a USC or UCLA one?
[/QUOTE]
No.
@thumper1 Certainly didn’t mean to imply that all upper-middle class parents and students are spellbound by prestige. But there’s no denying that it matters hugely to many. And I ask because a cousin chose a top college over a tippy-top one for financial reasons, and is feeling a little regret.
@romanigypsyeyes Mind elaborating? 
Like everything else, the answer to this question depends on the student’s goals, field of study, temperament and abilities, and how those factors fit with the institution. Incidentally, Princeton may well be a better financial deal for the OOS student or the student who needs a lot of financial aid than either UCLA or USC.
The answer is: it depends. Are we talking UG only? I think for someone expected to continue after UG by obtaining a PhD in a field that Princeton will better prepare them than either USC or UCLA. USC and UCLA will do a fine job of that along with countless other schools but I think Princeton will do it the best for many fields.
My son’s friend had a lot of financial need, and Princeton the met the bill 100%. He loved the school, and had summer internships at top places, He is an engineer with a good company. He probably could have ended up with a similar job from many schools.
This.
Another vote for - Do a search on cc and read the many threads where poster discuss/argue thaws points over and over. Of course there is no significant benefit to one over the other. There are many variables that go into finding the right school.
Intrinsic value is the worth the “thing” has on its own. The same person applying for a job or grad school with all of the same stats would have the greater number of positive outcomes with a degree from Princeton.
Is it the best choice…that’s entirely dependent on the individual.
Ivy League schools have great financial aid, and that is a huge benefit for many. If a person is choosing a top school rather than a tippy top one, like Princeton, for financial reasons, that means income is quite high, because financial aid at Ivies is offered to families with incomes as high as $150k, and even more than that depending. So that means in the case the OP is describing, it would be possible to afford Princeton for the family.
There are many great schools, and a student can thrive and succeed in any of them. USC and UCLA are no doubt great schools. Princeton and other Ivies and top colleges are also great experiences. Prestige is the last reason to go there, though. The OP’s question seems to center on prestige.
I would answer that the intrinsic value of a Princeton education is extremely high. And potentially high at USC and UCLA too. It depends on many things. What does the student want to study? How does the student respond to being a “small fish” in terms of peers? What size, location and “vibe” are important to the student. How about social skills? Is a house system helpful versus a large university and how does UCLA, for instance, break into smaller communities.
Are Princeton professors geared to undergrads more than those at the other two schools? Are there TA’s teaching sections at all these schools? Are prof.'s more geared to research than teaching, and more geared to grad students?
Princeton is a pretty leafy town on the East Coast, relatively close to NYC and Philly both. The other two schools are, obviously, on the West Coast and in LA.
Does the cousin mind snow?!
What is the price difference between USC, UCLA, and Princeton for the family?
Princeton is super selective, peers will be exceptionally talented, and possibly, at least in some cases, interesting. But I don’t think that being an interesting person necessarily equates with high scores and grades And the other two schools are very selective, so that really isn’t an issue anyway.
Your question is basically asking if the prestige factor reflects a better education. I would forget about prestige and look at the specifics I and others might mention. Many things to consider.
But it is too late anyway, right?
For my many friends who went back into the job market after taking 10-15 years off to stay home with kids the ones who went to HYP were much more easily able to get “back in the game” at a high level job. It wasn’t impossible for others but even people who went to very good schools : Northwestern Geoergetown etccc didn’t have the same kind of ease as those very top schools. So there is some value from that perspective.
I know a LOT of women who stayed at home with their kids, and renetered the job market because they had the skills to do so. NONE were graduates of elite schools. I guess that’s my circle of friends.
But you make it sound like an elite school education will open doors for everyone…and that simply is not true.
And anyway…this thread is comparing UCLA, USC and Princeton. Where I live…all of those schools are viewed as excellent colleges.
For all three, the answer is “it depends”. On goals and the person. USC and UCLA aren’t really the same either (and Georgetown and Cal are very different; and many people would say Rice is just as prestigious as those 2).
Looking at something from a purely one-dimensional viewpoint doesn’t usually make sense.
So what I was trying to get at is that there’s no such thing as “intrinsic value of a college” because it would be so different for different people and goals.
That’s kind of like asking what the intrinsic value of one work abroad experience is vs. another. Even if someone ranked them all by their own criteria, what’s the intrinsic value of working as an engineer at Daimler in Germany vs. working for the State department in China?
The issue is how to measure the value of an education. There is a theory in economics saying that most of the value of an education is in the school’s name. After all, you would learn the same calculus whether you take it at Princeton or a community college.
“Is a Princeton education intrinsically more valuable than a USC or UCLA one?”
If you want to work in investment banking or a prestigious expensive top law firm, probably yes.
Otherwise, definitely no. Princeton is a good university, but so are USC and UCLA.
If you want to work in software engineering, there are many universities that are a lot better than Princeton. Probably UMass Amherst is better than Princeton.
“I used the USNews rankings as a crude measure of general prestige, …”
Not a good idea.
If he sat with his parents and they said they would have trouble paying for the tippy top school so he went with the school that was the most financially feasible option for his family, then he made the right choice for his situation.
All three are excellent schools and will provide him with a great education if that is his desire.
@hzhao2004: Actually, you got that slightly but significantly wrong. What you should have said is “There is a theory in economics saying that some of the value of an education is in the school’s name.” That effect is called signalling, but people are far from agreement on how important that effect is. Especially for undergrad, with heterogeneity everywhere in everything. For something like law school and business school (though for b-school, network effects are probably greater), signalling undoubtedly is a bigger component. Logic would dictate that signalling also has a bigger effect in those (more opaque) fields where potential and performance can not be easily ascertained in simpler ways. Thus we should see signalling have a bigger influence in fields like law and philosophy but less of one in fields like CS and engineering.