@mountain88 Let me first say that I joined CC when my kid qualified as PSAT National Merit Semifinalist because I was excited at the possibility of finding some Honors Public colleges which would offer our kid full or nearly full rides. I did and he applied to 2 of them (plus top UCs) and got into all of them and also received the expected merit money from Honors Colleges. All good.
But like your kid, my kid was NOT that interested in these schools because he felt he would fit better at Stanford, even though I nudged him to look at them more seriously, extolled about their one or two strong programs and explained how much money we could save and instead use the money towards other things. It wasn’t the prestige only that made our kid want to apply to Stanford; he had a chance to become pretty familiar with Stanford, and he really wanted to go here, whereas he did not want to apply to Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, UChicago, UPenn, MIT or Pomona. Simply put, he already decided not to apply to these schools. The only other top school he was somewhat interested in applying to, if he did not get into Stanford REA, was Yale. But for us, we could afford full pay at Stanford, so this was a big factor, and we as parents were supportive of his applying to ANY school he felt he would fit well. Had our kid not gotten into Stanford, my spouse would have wanted him to attend UC Berkeley, and I would have wanted him to attend University of South Carolina Honors for nearly free or UCLA for in-state tuition. Therefore, I was always somewhat concerned that my kid passed up an opportunity to get a good education at an Honors College for nearly free and was going to Stanford which he may or may not like that much, even though he felt it was a good fit. I am not the kind of person who feels it’s better for my kid to go to an academically lower ranked school so he has a better chance to be at the top of his class; I rather he go to a college where almost all departments are very strong and he feels challenged and learn to UP his skills and learn how to handle pressures while studying and pursuing some activities.
Anyway, our kid has been there now for 2 months and recently came home for Thanksgiving break. And he told us he already feels at home at Stanford, and one thing he likes a lot about Stanford is that when he’s there he feels hopeful and positive at all the support and opportunities. He feels like he can learn what he wants and become the kind of person he wants to be without negative vibes. He says sometimes when he looks around as he’s walking around on the campus, he gets warm positive feeling (maybe due to sunshine) at the opportunities and resources available to him. As you can imagine from parents’ point of view, this was very good to hear. And I now have absolutely no regret about our kid’s having chosen Stanford (at full pay which we can afford) and leaving us after the Thanksgiving break because essentially I feel he’s returning home where he belongs. My spouse and I are convinced that he chose the college that best fit him.
He’s a non-STEM kid by the way.
EDIT: If we could not afford Stanford full pay, and Stanford did not give enough financial aid, I would have told him that my first choice was University of South Carolina Honors and then second, UCLA. I know my spouse would have said UC Berkeley over Univ of South Carolina Honors.
“The kid who was a rock star at state U probably makes the cut in a pool of “higher quality schools”…[Those] schools have already vetted top performers.”
But a kid who gets in to those “higher quality schools” will certainly be capable of being a “rock star” at “state U”. Indeed that’s almost a given if they are offered a full ride to state U and are singled out for special programs and opportunities (unless they get distracted as a kid can do at either a higher or lower ranking college).
Merely being at the “top tier” (most selective) colleges signals that they were high school superstars, or merely strong high school students who had an additional college-desired attribute (at some colleges, this is often something unearned that correlates to existing advantage, like legacy), and family financials that made those colleges affordable.
Considered in this context, some super selective colleges give a stronger signal than others about a new graduate’s current academic strength. For example, MIT does not consider legacy in admission, and has a relatively rigorous set of GE requirements, so the signal there is stronger than at many other super selective colleges.
^ no argument. I would assume that the student at highly selective school would also do quite well at state U and perhaps make a unique situation out of it. That’s why I would include him in the pool.
But not everyone is a rock star, by definition. So in my world I would assume a random student at a highly selective school would be preferable to a random student at a lesser selective school. That’s until they all open their mouths but decisions are made prior to them getting a chance to open their mouths and that’s my point.
It’s important because in some professions, that first job sets you on a certain trajectory. Later in one’s career, it’s far more about the work experience but that also can be set up from the earlier stages of a career.
But we’re not talking about a “random student” at state U. This thread is entitled “Student not interested in full ride schools”. So the assumption is that they would be a rock star at that school.
However, you do realize that you are implicitly selecting the new graduates with a heavy dose of parental influence, such as legacy admission and parental money to afford expensive elite college*, as well asparental support fir achievement while in high school, right?
*Yes, there is often good FA, but admission practices at the most selective private colleges result in frosh classes skewed away from high FA-need students and toward those from the highest income and wealth families.
Suffice to say they may or may not be a rock star and even if they are, they may not be any more of one than the rest of the talent pool from the highly selective schools. I’m just telling you how I approach a hiring situation. All things being equal (including rock star to rock star) I consider the school in the overall candidate profile to decide if I want to invest my time in speaking with them. Do I miss the occasional diamond in the rough? Perhaps. But not likely and certainly not any more than in choosing one highly selective school candidate over another.
We had that situation with our S1. He was adamant about not wanting to visit or go to schools where he could have gotten free tuition. But, we built his college list based on mostly LACs (he wanted that) where we thought he would get merit aid, and let him apply to a few full pay options. We told him our budget and explained that if he chose a school outside the budget, he would need to take out the federal loans and we wouldn’t co-sign loans. He ultimately chose a LAC where he got some merit aid, but it was the most expensive other than the full pay options, using the full budget.
I do question at times whether we should have let him choose (he’s very young for his age), but we could afford it and he’s very happy there and, fingers crossed, hopefully he will thrive as he matures.
I also question whether we should have let him choose the “best/highest ranked” school he got into due to what posters say about opportunities for first jobs. But what’s done is done, and if our S chooses to do well where he is he would be able to shine.
It’s hard to be a parent. I think you just have to decide what you think is right for each kid and your family. Many people on this site think this is wrong, but our decisions with S1 were based not only on finances but on his maturity and work ethic at the time. Our decisions with our other 2 kids may well be different based on the same considerations.
^ the reality is in actually making the decisions…who cares what the other parents on CC think? Your kid, your money, your world. Nothing else really matters.
“The top tier school kids have already proven to be able to get in and succeed in that environment. Why would I assume they would be worse performers at the job I am looking to fill?”
But why would you assume that they can do the job just based on where they went or ucbalumnus said what they did in hs or the connections they have? Once applicants are in the interview stage, the school really becomes irrelevant, again, in high tech. I concede it’s different in other industries, but we don’t assume that the elite college grad can solve the technical problems of the interview and say hey you don’t have to solve them but the state college grad does. .
Second, maybe as important, we do not assume the elite grad can fit in the culture, and again give them a free pass. In fact it is here that the state grads typically do better than the elite grad (I did not attend a state school for my undergrad engineering degree), so it’s not like I have a bias against elite grads. I have seen state school grads, and not necessarily even rock stars, get the job over elite grads, I won’t mention schools to protect the innocent.
The reality is that kids that go to elite colleges have a leg up with graduate admissions and even getting a job interview in the first place if they want to go into the job world. It probably isn’t right but that’s the way it is. Its not that the kids who go to elite schools necessarily get a better education. Its others think they are more properly vetted. Why do all the supreme court justices seem to come from Harvard or Yale? I paid full price for both my kids to go to selective schools and I don’t regret it for a moment. One of them got offered a full ride at USC and turned them down
“Why do all the supreme court justices seem to come from Harvard or Yale?”
Because you only remember where they went to law school. In fact only one went to Harvard and one to Yale for undergrad. No one is arguing that the quality of grad school or law school you attend isn’t important. But you can get there from a college most people have never heard of (viz Clarence Thomas).
It’s far from clear that an average student from a tippy top school would have a leg up in grad school admissions compared to that same student being a rock star from a less prestigious undergraduate school.
Even at the top end that’s not necessarily true. Take this year’s Rhodes Scholars for example. 16 from elite schools, 13 from non-elite schools and 3 from service academies. But will their future opportunities be meaningfully different?
Let’s be fair. 6 current Supreme Court justices went to Ivies for undergraduate (3 to Princeton, 1 Harvard, 1 Cornell, 1 Columbia) and 1 to Oxford. Yes, one went to a college Ive never heard of — but the 8th (while attending not an Ivy) went to a school well respected and frequently recommended on CC.
I personally don’t think Ivies are “all that”. But your argument is disingenuous at best. I do think my kid with a soft GPA was helped in grad school admissions by the reputation of her undergrad school (not an Ivy, but well respected and known for grade deflation).
We’re way off track…but Rhodes Scholars logic is a bit off. It actually does more to make the case for elite schools. You have a very small number of elite schools (not sure what you’re considering elite but let’s say generically top 50). Many of them tend to be smaller schools. So 50 smaller schools out produced 3000 (of various sizes but including most of the large ones) other schools for Rhodes Scholars. Although in many cases I think the education is actually better (profs vs. TAs, smaller classes, more interaction, etc.), let’s assume it’s equal. Then what accounts for the massive % advantage per capita of Rhodes Scholars coming from elite schools? Some would say it’s self selection. The best and brightest are going to go to the elite schools so naturally that explains the issue. I’m sure there’s plenty of that. So, if self selection sends the best kids to the best schools, why wouldn’t you assume they are also the best candidates for top jobs coming out of UG? Fortunately, outside of recession and times of high unemployment, the US has many jobs to fill. The elite schools can’t possibly fill them all. Just not enough bodies. So most smart kids get a crack at it. Generally speaking, the better you do the more cracks you get.
“Therefore, I was always somewhat concerned that my kid passed up an opportunity to get a good education at an Honors College for nearly free and was going to Stanford which he may or may not like that much, even though he felt it was a good fit.”
Always go with the kids feelings on fit, they really know where they fit, not saying that every decision is the right one, but definitely they’re going to make better choices than the parents. And most CA students know they’ll fit in at Stanford, weather, culture, openness etc. The issue here though is affording the college up front and whether the expensive selective college makes a difference, and my position is for STEM, it does not.
“I paid full price for both my kids to go to selective schools and I don’t regret it for a moment. One of them got offered a full ride at USC and turned them down”
If the COA is the same for an elite school vs state school, you go to the elite school. However that may not be the case, the state school is paying everything, so even if the elite school meets need, you may have to use loans, work study, and maybe the FA package isn’t the same next year. Cost and affordability are the biggest criteria in selecting a college, maybe by a large amount, followed by academics or strength of major, opportunities after graduation.
Thanks for all the comments to my OP. The thread is essentially for those who do not earn a high income, but earn too much to get aid, who have not saved enough for in-state public school let alone out of state, who do not like debt, who have multiple children to send to college, and who cannot afford to pay the EFC by any stretch. In these situations, full ride scholarships seem like gifts from above. But when they are from schools that, while being good schools, are not on the student’s preferred list, and are not generally viewed as “top” schools, the dilemma appears. Perhaps encouraging a student to take the full ride is like a life lesson - you go with what you can afford, and make the best of it. Perhaps it teaches that you should not borrow just to get things you perceive as being better. But of course any parent who has a mortgage is borrowing, and there are many who borrowed to go to a selective school and say it was worth it. How to approach a student who views it in that way? Teens generally do not comprehend what it will be like to make student loan payments into their 30s or even 40s.