<p>"I have yet to hear something complimentary about Ivy Leaguers from those who are defending State U’
From a previous post:
To clarify my postion, I never said it was poor choice to go to an Ivy. It is clearly the right choice for many students. Those who have that choice are generally smart and have worked very hard. And they’re not all snobs (my brother went to Harvard and I actually really like him).
It’s great to talk about how you want to be surrounded by quality students and academics – but I think it’s hard to do that without implying that the “other” schools are inferior. Especially when you refer to DRASTIC differences in quality. What is a quality student? High SAT scores and GPA with a long list of ECs? What is a quality teacher? Are small classes better than large classes? Are high profile sports programs an advantage or a distraction? I agree with Marite - it’s about the match for your child. On the original question, I think there’s quite a bit of research that points to the student, not the college as the primary determinant of later success.</p>
<p>Of course it’s not worth $100 k in debt to do that. If one is interested in being a journalist or having that as a hobby in college, one could go to J schools like those at Missou or Northwestern and be around a lot of students who are passionate about journalism and who are happy to spend a lot of time working on excellent student newspapers. If one didn’t want to be a journalist, one could pursue another career after graduation. Indeed, working on student newspapers is, for instance, excellent preparation for law school, where good writing ability, excellent general knowledge, and good critical thinking and research skills are needed.</p>
<p>Presumably, you are poking fun at me for saying that most of the folks at the daily student papers at places like HPY are doing that work purely for fun, not because they plan to be journalists. This is true, and it also makes a statement about the type of people who go to places like HPY: People who will devote a lot of time to ECs that have nothing to do with their career aspirations. Must also are able to devote a lot of time on ECs unrelated to their academics while also keeping up grades high enough to graduate. </p>
<p>I don’t think that the opportunity to be around people who are able to passionately work on school newspapers while also doing well in unrelated academics is so wonderful that any student should go into $100 k of debt to experience that.</p>
<p>ICargirl, I have really enjoyed your thoughtfully written posts as as a student who attends a highly selective university and why that environment is well suited to your preferences in a college. </p>
<p>I think one problem here is the assumption that anyone who attends a very selective college or is the parent of a child who attends one, thinks it is “superior” or “advantageous” over other colleges. I have kids who go to selective schools and I don’t think that the schools are superior or that my kids are better or will have more advantages or chances at success in life. I think a person who is going to be successful in life can go to any college and become a success. Successful people come out of state schools or less selective colleges. So, I certainly don’t see an IVY or other top college as superior or advantageous in life so much. </p>
<p>I think a person who chooses a very selective college, or at least can speak for my own children, do so for the experience that meets the college criteria that are their personal ones. One of these many college critera, is seeking a certain kind of college environment and level of challenge. They may be happy elsewhere but if given a choice, craved a more challenging school and learning environment. </p>
<p>NorthstarMom wrote:
“My thoughts are that many students who end up at places like Ivies had a prior educational experince of being exposed to plenty of diversity from students who were intellectually dissimilar from them. Being in a place like an Ivy provides a rare opportunity to finally be around a group of students who share ones passion about academics and intellectual/artistic ECs.”</p>
<p>For my kids, this pretty much rings true to their backgrounds and experiences. They were fine at their local public school and I don’t regret sending them there. My older D’s GC wrote something on her rec for college about how he was surprised that my D did not go off to a prep boarding school like some around here do, but we never opted for that. She made due just fine here and sought out challenges and made them happen. But now, for college, she did want a certain kind of challenge and environment. My other D did too. Her college program and peer group is nothing like her public high school. She also is in a specialized field and needs to be with others of her talent level in order to be pushed to higher levels. She craves the challenge of it. </p>
<p>They sought their schools because of how the schools fit them, not because the schools were superior or would give them a better life or job. Their college choices truly had to do with fit, whether people want to believe it or not. Yes, they wanted also to go to a “good college” but don’t necessarily think their schools are better than other schools but that their schools fit what they were looking for in a college. They believe there are many good colleges out there. </p>
<p>I also agree with what Momwaitingfornew has written, which is similar. </p>
<p>By the way, why do you think there ARE Honors Colleges at some state U’s? If all levels of learners should mix in the classroom, why a need for Honors level courses or colleges within a college anyway? And for that matter, why have tracked classes like Honors or AP in HS either? To me, it all is a similar reasoning just like going to a more selective college…the appropriate challenge level for each learner. </p>
<p>Like ICargirl, my kids would not have been happy in the easier courses in our HS. They did not like classwork that was too easy. They did not enjoy being around kids in class who did not wish to be there, who did not care, did not do the homework, etc. It brings the class down. Now, they are happy to mix with those kids in some other endeavors like their dance classes or sports teams. In the classroom, they really enjoy appropriate level work with like minded learners in terms of motivation and challenge. This certainly can be had at a Honors College at a stage U. My D has very close home friends attending such programs. They are bright kids! Their entire college environment is not similar to my D’s at her Ivy but it is still a great school but simply different. Differences are a good thing. One school is not better than another but is different in various ways, including selectivity of admissions. </p>
<p>I think if you wish to have various levels of learners mixed at a college, seek out that environment. All schools are not like that though. To be like that, then schools would have to let down their selectivity and just admit anyone and then they’d all end up with a very diverse group of learning levels. This would be like if our HS did away with tracking and all the kids at our HS were in the same classes…that means even the 1/3 who were not college bound, the numerous kids with learning disabilitiies, etc. That was what our Middle School was like and were the most unhappiest years of schooling (not of their life but just talking of academic part of their life) for my kids. Simply did not meet their learning needs, or desires. I see the various levels of college like this as well. A kid can go to any school and become a success. Bright kids exist at all colleges. Whether you can be happy in all learning environments or feel that you fit in intellectually academically and so forth, is another story. </p>
<p>Like Northstarmom wrote, while there is value in diverse learning groups, many of the kids who attend highly selective colleges have been part of such a mix prior to college and now that they are at top schools, are for the first time in their life finding an entire group of peers that are like them in terms of learning. My kids are enjoying that aspect. It is not necessary to have but they really find it a good fit and that it is neat to finally be meeting up with some who share similar motivations and outlooks to learning that they have. They no longer stand out and fit in more now and if anything, are challenged by the fact that they no longer stand out to the degree they once did. It is very stimulating for them to not be the “star.” It challenges them even further. They love challenge.</p>
<p>EDIT…lots of posts went up when I was writing this and I now read what Marite wrote in #636 and her experience and thoughts are exactly what it was like in my family as well.</p>
<p>"It’s great to talk about how you want to be surrounded by quality students and academics – but I think it’s hard to do that without implying that the “other” schools are inferior. "</p>
<p>It matters how you look at things. Many people would characterize some general characteristics of Harvard students as being characteristics of obnoxious, boring, nerdy people. Many people simply would not find it fun to be around people whose fun is intensely pursuing academics and intellectual/artistic ECs. They would find people to be far more fun and interesting who avidly follow campus sports, enjoy the frat scene, and whose idea of fun is simply hanging out and not talking about academics or serious ECs.</p>
<p>The two types of people are, however, simply different. One is not better than the other time. The two types are, however, better fits for different types of colleges.</p>
<p>They also are better fits for different environments after college. For instance, I doubt that many former frat boys and sorority girls would greatly enjoy working as scientists after graduation. I don’t think that scientists are known as being rah rah type of people. I doubt that the intense, individualist type of people would enjoy working in environments in which there’s lots of emphasis on people working together and doing things in ways that are very conforming, not mold breaking.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think it’s virtually never worth it to go into six-figure debt for undergrad. It’s doubly not worth it for students (as opposed to parents) to assume that kind of debt. Fortunately, that kind of debt is pretty rare at HYP et al.</p>
<p>SPENDING the money, if you have it, is often worth it. But borrowing is a totally different story.</p>
<p>Northstar Mom - Great post.</p>
<p>
Really? I would have thought between parent loans (whether plus or home equity) and student loans many families would hit that level.</p>
<p>I think that at Harvard, most students take out less than $10 k total in loans for their education. It’s far less than that for low income students. </p>
<p>I think that the colleges where students carry the heaviest loans are public institutions which have relatively low amounts of need-based aid, and attract proportionately more low income students than do the top colleges (due to the fact that many low income students can not meet the admission standards at top colleges).</p>
<p>Many of the families posting on CC about needing to take out $80k-$100 k in loans for top colleges “need” to do this because they have high consumer debt (which the colleges don’t consider when calculating need-based aid) or because the parents simply refuse to pay what the colleges say they are capable of paying. The parents appear to want to continue a luxury lifestyle while having a kid in a college that costs a bunch, but unfortunately, the parents don’t make enough $ to support both of those goals without borrowing heavily.</p>
<p>"If you think you are hot stuff, take a walk in a cemetary. Those people buried there thought they were hot stuff once too. "</p>
<p>makes no sense in relation to my posts or are you reflecting on your ownbehavior?</p>
<p>
My o my. Aren’t we out of touch with reality. Is that really what you think is happening in middle America, NSM? Well, guess I’ll go get in my Viper ragtop and head on down to the Indian casino for an afternoon of highballs and high living. It’s really OT NSM, but that type of ignorance is just shameful.</p>
<p>[Way off topic-sorry. The formulas used are arbitrary and are punitive to small business owners who don’t cheat. They are designed for folks with sheltered retirement plans and two part paychecks. As our economy becomes one where less and less parents fit that mold, the schools are not keeping up, nor does it seem they want to keep up.]</p>
<p>During our last great social revolution in the US–the 60’s–the leadership was not from the Ivy schools but from some of the great state schools like Cal, and Wisconsin, and Michigan.</p>
<p>
Well, to be fair though, implied in the title is an element of elitism because of the word Advantage. What we say when we use it connected with attending a top college is that these schools offer something so that those attending them have a leg up over others. That riles folks because they dont wish to accept that they or their kids were/are somehow at a disadvantage for having attended State U.</p>
<p>And when you talk of LIFETIME advantage, well, now you see why everyone is really going at it.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon–she said “many” not “all” or “most”. And I think she’s basically correct. One thing that has become very apparent to me is that what many people on CC is a middle class standard of living, isn’t. And what I would call rich, many here call upper middle class.</p>
<p>Yes, your situation is an outlier. One of the many reasons that “all” would have been an exaggeration. But she didn’t say that.</p>
<p>"They also are better fits for different environments after college. For instance, I doubt that many former frat boys and sorority girls would greatly enjoy working as scientists after graduation. I don’t think that scientists are known as being rah rah type of people. I doubt that the intense, individualist type of people would enjoy working in environments in which there’s lots of emphasis on people working together and doing things in ways that are very conforming, not mold breaking. "</p>
<p>Ahh, must explain why over half the men at MIT end up pledging a fraternity… they must be the one’s who eschew writing for the Tech or majoring in Science… all that rah rah must somehow rot the science cells.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, you really ought to get out more. I don’t mean to pick on you, but your characterizations of the kinds of people who become journalists, go to State schools, become scientists, have to take out loans to pay for their kids education, enjoy being passionately engaged in intellectual EC’s, etc. betrays a woefully parochial view of the world.</p>
<p>garland, I wasn’t just talking about me, or really even thinking about me (in fact I have admitted earlier today on this thread that we COULD have struggled and paid what the elites asked ). I would not have borrowed such sums. Ever. But I have found many parents that fit that category of borrower and few of them that fit nsm’s category of high living folks who just refuse to pay. It was and is clear to me that NSM believes that the elites make it possible for all or most to attend and that is just simply not even close to true for middle class folks ($55-100K).</p>
<p>“My o my. Aren’t we out of touch with reality. Is that really what you think is happening in middle America, NSM? Well, guess I’ll go get in my Viper ragtop and head on down to the Indian casino for an afternoon of highballs and high living. It’s really OT NSM, but that type of ignorance is just shameful.”</p>
<p>Presumably, you haven’t read the many posts by students whose say their parents make from $100,000-$200,000 a year, yet are not willing to spend a dime for their kids’ educations. There also are people posting here who make those kind of salaries and even have things like second homes and only one kid, but still expect to get lots of need-based aid without any loans at that!</p>
<p>You also probably haven’t H’s financial aid officers talk about how they don’t have sympathy for people who are literally living luxury lifestyles – mansions, expensive cars – yet expect lots of financial aid. Sorry, while there’s aid for people who have gone into debt for things like medical emergencies, there’s not need-based aid for people who bought Jaguars (though I personally know someone with a Jag and a mansion who applied for need-based aid at H. As the person told me, “We thought we’d try to see was out there.” They didn’t get aid, but still sent their kid to H and still have the mansion and Jag).</p>
<p>And there seem to be plenty of people who somehow don’t expect that sending their kids to college will pinch their budgets. Yes, sending one’s kid to college might mean that mom may have to work (I have seen financial aid complaints from families in which only one parent is in the workforce, and there was no indication that health problems were preventing the other parent’s working), the family may have to go camping for vacation, not to expensive places; the kid may have to have summer jobs or jobs during the school year, not take summer time to go abroad or do unpaid internships.</p>
<p>I am among the people who aren’t wealthy, but wouldn’t qualify for much if any need-based financial aid. I have enjoyed some nice vacations, live in an area with a nice school system, and sent my kids to some nice summer educational programs. Those were my own choices. I’m not expecting the colleges to somehow reward me by giving me lots of need-based aid. Consequently, I steered my kids toward colleges that were good fits that were within our budget or that were likely to offer my kids merit aid.</p>
<p>NSM, there are thieves everywhere and I hope the colleges catch them and punish them by all means possible. To be fair though, you have stated that your own children for their own reasons did not consider the elite schools, so I really don’t know that their choices help us that much.</p>
<p>And I agree with you that need based aid should require a family to enter the pinch zone.</p>
<p>Well, Curmudgeon, we’re at the low end of that spectrum right now, and paying full fare (fingers crossed that changes next year, but we’ll deal either way.) We do take frugality to absurd lengths, but we haven’t yet had to take out any school loans, either.</p>
<p>and garland, I have the utmost respect for the choices your family has made. I just think there are some middle class folks that get crappy FA that are deserving of respect, too.</p>
<p>And NSM, right now I can’t imagine a fact scenario (other than medical) where someone with $200k in income deserves FA. I’ll hold them and you can hit them with a hammer. :0) They will get zero sympathy from me. It’s the folks without any retirement plans that have rent property to fund their non-working years that concern me. And fifty other real scenarios that profile ignores, while allowing equivalently well paid folks with everything in exempt retirement accounts to sail through with plenty of FA.</p>
<p>Yeah, I do understand that. I don’t think its’ the norm, though. The “higher” ranked schools tend to have the most money to give out, thouogh of course they don’t mostly give merit.</p>
<p>I’ve written elsewhere that I came from an “exception” family–widowed mom making lower middle class money: my Social Security benefits were going toward helping pay the bills, while schools expected them to pay tuition, so I got no aid. Cobbled together work, scholarships (eventually) and lots of loans for both of us. </p>
<p>The formulas are pretty straightforward, and most treat most people the same way. I don’t think the deck is stacked against the “norm” , but there are many who don’t fit that profile, and i agree it can be hard for them.</p>