<p>Not sure why discussions of elite schools always revert back to i-banking. I suppose because investment bankers are the modern day version of the hated Biblical tax collector, which explains why the religious people on this thread seem to have particular vehemence toward them. I understand that those interested in investment banking believe the Ivies are their best route to that career, and perhaps there are a lot of such students and their parents posting on CC, and maybe that explains the link? Regardless, of the students in our community we known who’ve aspired to top schools, the VAST majority are pre-med and pre-law. Most of the top students in general claim to be pre-med or pre-law. Why not also accuse them of being prestige and money-hungry, or being similarly na</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, then the family in question should examine all available options before enrollment and decide accordingly.</p>
<p>One data point they frequently fail to examine is the actual benefit of the named institution on their future. The facts simply don’t bear out the “concept” that it is financially beneficial to the upper middle class student to attend the most expensive option, or even the most prestigious option. The facts are rather interesting on this issue.</p>
<p>I think this has also been re-examined since the recession, and we went over it last year, complete with linked studies I don’t feel like finding right now.</p>
<p>ETA: I actually have no problem with ibanking, or hedge funds or any of the vilified professions. I just also know that if you want to go into these fields, there is no reason you can’t get there from high ranked state U. Or Notre Dame or whatnot. UVA, UNC, UMich, all of these schools have Ibankers in the ranks. Hell, even cruddy directional U from Illinois has people in there, people from Iowa state. You’d really be surprised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is SO not necessarily true. Really, Beliavsky?!?!?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The lower SES students derive more benefit from going to college than upper middle class kids in terms of improving their SES status. However, I don’t believe it’s ever been shown that going to an <em>elite</em> college has much more of an effect for lower SES students than a non-elite college.</p>
<p>Go to Ivies for pre-med or pre-law only makes financial sense if 1) your parents are rich enough to pay for Ivy undergrad and medschool. 2) they qualify for FA. 3) you are willing to take on a 250k loan for med school or 150k for law school. (3 does account making financial sense for me)</p>
<p>^Or if you are confident that you can get an i-banking or high-paying consulting job after graduation. I know a lot of classmates who worked on Wall Street for a couple of years before going to med school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it has. I showed you the studies last year CA when we talked about this. The only group for which this matters is the lower SES students. Everyone else has similar outcomes regardless of institutional prestige. Lower SES the prestige makes a difference.</p>
<p>I’m not sure they have studied “why” but I did show you those studies the last time we talked about this.</p>
<p>Students who wish to attend top schools have just as much right to want to attend them for all kinds of reasons, as the kids who attend the local flagship. The reasons I hear for the latter are, “Most of my high school friends are going there too,” and “It’s close to home.” Hmm. And those reasons are so much nobler than “I want to go to X school because it has a top department in my major?” or even “It’s the highest ranked school in the world?” I fail to see why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being a “new poster” and all, where did you get the information that I “paid lots of money to college counselors to increase the probability that my kids would be admitted to top colleges”? Because your information is inaccurate. </p>
<p>My kids (with help from me and my husband) picked the colleges that they were interested in visiting and applying to. Those colleges ranged all over the board in the top 40 (or thereabouts) in the USNWR LAC and university lists, and were not frontloaded to the top 20 schools at all. Indeed, no Ivies, and only one top 20 university on either list. I’m happy to repost that list if you want.</p>
<p>S’s #2 choice school was a LAC that is ranked somewhere in the 30’s. D’s #2 choice school was an LAC ranked somewhere in the 20’s. Those choices would have been absolutely, perfectly fine with us. </p>
<p>My kids attended public schools all the way through and did not have any SAT/ACT private tutoring at all. We did hire an essay consultant who is the utmost in integrity and honesty and I have no regrets. </p>
<p>Perhaps you’re unable to distinguish between the concept of ‘putting forth the best application for a number of colleges, any one of which will serve you just fine’ and ‘putting forth the best application because you’ll just up-and-die if you don’t get into an Ivy and you’ll live in your parents’ basement forever’?</p>
<p>And “why not let them attend a public school”? Because they have no need to. I have the money and that’s how I want to spend it. No one’s saying that there is anything wrong with attending a public / state school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether the reasons are nobler or not isn’t the issue. You’re talking about schools that have defined criteria for admission - we accept the first XXX students who have a hs GPA of x.x and SAT’s over yyy, over and done. Elite schools have the luxury of deciding whether you’re a fit or not. Look at those U Chicago essays with the unusual, off-beat prompts. Now, personally, those are turn-offs for me and mine, but so what – then, clearly, we don’t fit at U Chicago. But you can hardly argue that U Chicago “shouldn’t” offer them. If they want to attract the kind of student body that thinks answering these kinds of essays is fun and meaningful? Have at it. Others need not apply, problem solved.</p>
<p>Collegealum, thanks for the idea. Didn’t think of that route.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The correlation is not 100%, but I think it is strongly positive. Even if you doubt the social value of some high-paying careers, 40% or more of the earnings from those careers goes to the government to fund public goods and transfers. My wife and I save most of what we earn and invest most of our savings in stocks. In that role we are effectively employers who enable people to make a living, in addition to being producers of consumer goods. In a free market economy, the rich tend to be the greatest benefactors of society, and I want my children to be such people.</p>
<p>OT, but why is TFA prestigious? After serving, are you guaranteed a job in your chosen field or something? I don’t understand how TFA benefits any new grads, other than those who want to go into teaching. Otherwise, it just delays your ability to start your career by two years. What am I missing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. I don’t “object” to i-banking or hedge fund managment or any career, for that matter.</p>
<p>What I object to is PROVINCIALISM.<br>
And believing that there are only a few paths to being well-to-do? Provincial.
Believing that there are only a few schools that can get you on such a path and you’ll have to struggle or live in your parents’ basement if you go anyplace else? Provincial.</p>
<p>I think that’s a huge stretch, Beliavsky, and you know it. Don’t want to derail this discussion into subjects like tax-avoidance schemes and corporate largesse, though, so I will leave it at that.</p>
<p>Low acceptance rates carry weight …</p>
<p>[TFA:</a> A Corporate Approach | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/29/tfa-harvard-students-education/]TFA:”>The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>TFA is the new peace corps.</p>
<p>^yes. I think TFA is helpful not only for kids want to become teachers, but for those who want to work at government or non-profit.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl-yes, that’s what I’m trying to say. As for “close to home” as if it’s a poor reason to go to college-well, my H went to college “close to home”, in fact, just a short bus ride away, while living at home. It happened to also have a great department in what he was studying, but well, going FAR from home wasn’t really on his mind since by the time he GOT to college, he’d lost both parents and was going to have to pay his own way.</p>
<p>His much older brother went to a top tier college often mentioned on this site, FAR from home, with a national rep in his major, and he’s living a very good life as a result of that education. He had that option since he had two living parents at the time. But…so is my H, and his many friends that he met in college-that old state U down the road…</p>
<p>The why for lower ses kids can be in the exposure to more. Can also be the higher standards. </p>
<p>It’s time to drop the jabs at whether one parent did or didn’t use a counselor.</p>
<p>We sought the best opportunity for D1. I’ve said partly because her major isn’t in depth everywhere. She also wanted a certain level of intellectual competition, the bar set higher, for that motivation to stretch. So be it. The State had one prof in her field, set to go half time, pre retirement. Her second choice was a top 50 (yeah) chosen on the strength of the dept, not outward prestige, tho it is regionally strong.</p>
<p>So, outsiders can say, oh right, but your kids went to a super college (LAC.) There’s no air in that balloon. You do the best you can for them and don’t couch it in fancy theories, predictions of better job offers or greater public good. You just try to find where each can be empowered and grow. AND you keep up with the very life lessons and skills that will allow them to identify, pursue and win future opportunities, build a career, do some good. Not magic.</p>