<p>Not arguing against you gadad, but I recall when I kinda looked into this awhile ago, that this study actually emphasized more than just peer interaction, but ALSO involvement with faculty:</p>
<p>If this is true, then I wonder even more if schools that do not put an emphasis on faculty involvement are really offering the best lifetime advantage to the widest array of students.</p>
<p>dstark: I so enjoyed that. The people I know (mostly family) who are ivy grads (of the '80’s btw), do not report such supreme satisfaction with their ivy experiences. I think, as with anything else, it is what one makes of it. I have a hard time believing that every Harvard graduate is such a supreme specimen of excellence and humanity as one would think based on some of these reports. Such elitist notions make me a little queasy, and, frankly, I thought they were a bit outdated.</p>
<p>Personally went to Princeton. Thought it was astonishing name be damned. However, name has been useful all my life, including allowing me to reenter the fulltime workforce after 10 years being much more mother than worker. Actual words by admin of VP at job interview - “Wow! Good schools!”</p>
<p>Agree that there are kids and experiences like you can find at a top school in many other places. But please. It is not the silver spoon aluminum school analogy. It is not a case of selling Mountain Dew and pretending it makes you able to jump into cold lakes and not feel it. There is a higher concentration of a certain kind of kid and a certain kind of faculty at the top tier schools. It is silly to pretend otherwise. It is also silly to pretend that top tier schools are the only or even the best path to material success, or that other schools don’t have bright kids and talented faculty. But please, don’t try to make this point so hard that you wind up in absurdity.</p>
<p>I went to an elite college and an elite graduate school. And yet I am still extremely uncomfortable with the thrust of this thread, because it intimates, rather strongly, a superiority among individuals who attend certain schools.</p>
<p>It’s not superiority. It’s a certain set of skills and a certain set of interests. And these skills and interests don’t guarantee any particular life path. But they will lead to certain classroom and homework experiences that will be ON AVERAGE NOT ACROSS THE BOARD different at top tier schools.</p>
<p>It’s an existence proof. If this were not true why would there be tiers? Why would recognized professors choose certain institutions? This cannot all be a house of mirrors. That is not logical.</p>
<p>hereshoping, I’m glad you enjoyed the story. The spoon story is from Thomas Veblon in “The Theory of the Leisure Class”. Isn’t that book mandatory reading at the IVYs?</p>
<p>I don’t expect those that own silver spoons to like my story. :)</p>
<p>Look, I also attended a graduate school that at the time was only in the top 10, not the top 3. Even that was different then attending a top 3. And Ivies are pluralized in lower case letters and just as the varieties of annoying persistent plants. I apologize for my tone but I have lost patience.</p>
But only a very narrow ideal of superiority. I mean, lets face it, there are people who are way more intellectually capable than I am when it comes to raw ability. But they may also be too arrogant to be any use to anyone. Or, maybe they are smart, but dont work as hard. Or, maybe they are incredibly smart, but arent as much of a hunk as somebody else. Its a rare person who is stuck with a handful of zeros. When top schools select their students, they are choosing from a fairly narrow set of attributes. Once theyve figured out that I am not very smart, they may not really care that I am handsome. And yet, my being handsome may really come in handy tons of times in my life.</p>
<p>So, I dont mind the discussion. What I am trying to figure out is whether the point being posited has merit. I think it does, but I think it has merit in unexpected ways, depending on how we value things.</p>
<p>Hey Dstark, let me make it clear that when I’m arguing in favor of an “elite” education, it’s a pretty good public I’m talking about (which we both like a lot).</p>
<p>Allmusic–as I said above, I’ve been to both kinds of schools–one where I was surrounded by people who loved learning and were passionate about ideas, one where those people were far and few between, and almost every last one of them transfered out. It’s not about some stduents being inferior or superior individuals, it’s about different aims and interests in the majority of the students. </p>
<p>When the big orientation event is the Miller Beer Wagon pulled up into the fire lane behind the frats, it’s possible that some students might not feel that they belonged, especially when most of the student body thought that was just perfect. I didn’t.</p>
<p>Allmusic…I certainly don’t think that those who attend elite schools are superior. I also wrote somewhere on this thread that I don’t think that elite schools necessarily lead to better job success or success in general, financial or otherwise. I didn’t choose my colleges this way, nor did my kids. They chose the selective schools that they are at because of the experience itself. The experience at those schools included several college criteria and preferences. ONE of these criteria was the level of challenge and the type of student body…motivated learners, high level of academic and other talents, challenging coursework with high expectations, and diverse student bodies. These kinds of students exist everywhere. I think they are in higher proportion at the most selective schools. I have taught at and visited many schools that are less selective and the atmosphere differs overall with that at a highly selective school. But there are pockets of just as qualified and motivated and engaged students on any college campus…it just may not be the ENTIRE campus.</p>
<p>I think you can get an excellent education at most colleges in the land and achieve success. How happy one is with the fit of the school is another story. I don’t see my kids as superior whatsoever. But just like they chose Honors classes at our HS and would not be content in the non college bound basic classes due to the level of academic challenge and the types of students who are in those classes, they felt similarly about choosing college learning environments that are selective in nature that fit their style of learning and peer group in and out of the classroom. I also think it is the student who “makes it” in this world, not the school from where she came. The only thing “better” or “superior” about my children’s schools is that they fit what they wanted (personal crteria) better than some other schools (though I am convinced there are many schools where they could have been happy and have thrived).</p>
<p>One of the many Atlantic Monthly articles on elite admissions makes the point that several here are trying to make… I don’t become a top model because I get recruited by a modeling agency… you can’t even join unless you’re 5’10" and weigh 110 lbs with a fabulous face… the modeling agency gives you access to the people you need to be successful, but can’t make a short plain jane into a model. By contrast, the US Marines isn’t all that picky… you have to qualify to join by some pretty generous standards ( be healthy, have good vision, be able to read to a certain level, have some level of athletic ability) but after that, it’s what they do to you in boot camp that makes you a marine.</p>
<p>Similarly, it’s insane to argue that all these kids become passionate intellectuals by going to Ivy league schools. The colleges recruit a narrowly defined model of succeesful high school kid; lather, rinse, repeat, and 160K later you’ve got a Harvard man. (or woman or whatever). </p>
<p>So to answer the question is there life-long benefit? I’d say if your kid is the HS equivalent of a plain Jane model wannabe, then you’ll probably get your money’s worth if he or she is lucky enough to get into one of these schools. If your kid is already destined for success, as demonstrated by initiative, passion, drive, etc. then if you’ve got the money-- why not. If you don’t, your kid will do fine anywhere.</p>
<p>Just my two cents, and I’ve known plenty of Ivy losers as well as real winners from unknown U.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is the tone issue I quibble with.</p>
<p>I am not denying differences in either intellect or drive. Having witnessed the Harvard Arts Festival, this past weekend, and seeing the incredible level of talent among the undergrads, we all know there can be a difference in the kind of kids who attend truly elite schools. </p>
<p>But, there are far more terrific kids than there are spots at truly elite schools, as we all know. Are those kids any less terrific because they were not admitted to an Ivy or first tier? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>But the Miller Beer Wagon is one reason I want my own kids at the very best school possible. Not because I think they will rub elbows with the rich and famous, make fabulous connections, or even get a better job in the future. I just want them in an environment that emphasizes education. First and foremost.</p>
<p>CCers could start by reading the title page and getting ol’ Tom’s name close to right.</p>
<p>But while they’re reading Thorstein Veblen, they might also take a gander at another famous old writer’s critique…H.L. Mencken’s classic essay “Professor Veblen.” <a href=“Welcome to The Memory Hole”>Welcome to The Memory Hole;
I’d rather read Mencken any day.</p>
<p>“… we would describe this problem as one of se-
lectivity bias, in that higher education opportunities are
not randomly distributed among the population. Perhaps
what has been attributed to college education is really at-
tributable to inherent skills and abilities. In popular
terms, if Harvard takes in students from the top 1 percent
of the talent pool and graduates them four years later still
in the top 1 percent, then what is the value-added of the
Harvard education?”</p>
<p>It was much simpler in my college days when the doors opened to a myriad of opportunities upon admission to an Ivy League school. Maybe it’s still that way today. Or maybe elite colleges are more like the New York Times. Once the “paper of record”, it is now a bastion of bias with dramatically declining readership and ad revenue. Unless they wake up, I fear elite colleges are treading the same path.</p>
<p>I’d read Mencken too - but it is clear from what he wrote about Veblen that Mencken had not a clue about Marx, and hence couldn’t see their radical differences.</p>