<p>ucbalumnus- 18 miles away from Cornell along route 13, students from SUNY Cortland trashed the town after a football VICTORY. If this is what they do after a victory, in a celebratory mood, what would they do after a defeat? </p>
<p>Also, by your own logic, you must have had a lesser experience at Cornell since it is generally known as the easiest Ivy to get into. Did you find yourself around more riffraff than you would have encountered at Harvard, Yale or Princeton? And if so, how did you cope?</p>
<p>You have got to be kidding. You have no clue that there are tons of families in which the money for college just doesn’t grow on trees, and students – who are well-intentioned, work hard, often work jobs on the side, etc. – drop out because THERE IS NO MONEY. Not because their parents were too busy buying iPhones and Caribbean cruises, but because there IS NO MONEY. And duh, that is a bigger problem at less selective schools that at selective schools that have generous financial aid.</p>
<p>pizzagirl-graduation rates are much more highly correlated with SATs than with net cost of attendance. And, for families with lower incomes, there is no correlation at all between net price and graduation rate.</p>
<p>What’s more, not only will 40% of your friends gradually disappear from the lower tier public (or private, for that matter) but a significant proportion of your friends won’t be graduating the same year as you. They will be graduating one or two years later. And, furthermore, by graduating one or two years later, they are costing their parents 25%-50% more money.</p>
<p>What are they doing in the dorms if they are not studying?</p>
<p>Who cares if one’s friends graduate in the same semester? Does that mean they cannot be friends?</p>
<p>Also, I know others have said this but you seem to ignore it. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason it takes some people longer to graduate is that they have to work while they are in school? So they perhaps cannot take as heavy a courseload as those whose mommy and daddy can pay their way and don’t expect them to contribute to their expenses while they are in school.</p>
<p>collegehelp: at this point, it really is difficult to believe you are serious, although frequently on this board I assume posters are joking when it later seems they were very serious</p>
<h1>760
</h1>
<p>UNC and NC State are excellent schools. Not that many students are really deciding between Harvard, Stanford or any of the other “supposedly premiere” colleges and UNC and NC State. Because not that many students get accepted to the “supposedly premiere” colleges. A whole lot of students may be deciding whether to apply to the “supposedly premiere” colleges. For some, I think it isn’t worth it. Friends sent their first two children to “supposedly premiere” colleges and they went on for advanced degrees at the same sort of school. They chose those schools based on specific departments, which they believed “best in the field” and they took advantage of every opportunity the schools afforded. The schools were an excellent fit. They are very successful in their fields. The parents were at our house when the Dad, evidently for the first time, said it might not be worth it to pay for a private college for the third one. She did not have a realistic profile for HYPSMXYZ. Mom had assumed they would look at other private colleges. Dad said, “why? I don’t see the point”. She went to an excellent state school, did reasonably well grade wise, made important networking connections, works for one of those big name, big time consulting groups and probably makes more than her siblings combined. Her college was a perfect fit for her.</p>
<p>Isn’t Kluge spending extra for his kids to go to an excellent state school? and maybe professional school? Is the argument there private vs public like the OP?</p>
<p>Quantmech turned down MIT and some ivy many years ago for a state school and has clearly not been too profoundly damaged. Recently there have been some articles about some ivies and former female students, which might suggest the “supposedly premiere” colleges were not as excellent a fit as they might have seemed on paper at the time. It has been making me think about whether resources matter if the student doesn’t have access. Perhaps that becomes a more damaging situation than working in a more nurturing and supportive environment with fewer obvious resources. And sort of parallels my sense that supportive parents sometimes have more impact on a child’s eventual achievements than any other factor.</p>
<p>Well, go ahead and think that everyone who went to East Directional State U must be a partying pothead compared to the superior beings in the Ivy League. See how far that unsophisticated and na</p>
<p>This is another discussion in which, in my opinion, hyperbolic statements by the OP have fostered contrary hyperbolic statements by people opposing him (or possibly her, but I doubt it).</p>
<p>Selective schools are pretty good. The most selective schools have a lot of really smart, motivated kids, and there are some advantages to going to school with them. They may not have any better morals than kids at less selective schools, but they will differ in some positive ways (on average) from less accomplished students. Some of the most selective schools also have a lot of money, and that can translate into a lot of cool opportunities for the students. They often have very nice facilities. Some of them have very generous financial aid programs, allowing many students to get all those goodies at a substantial discount. In my opinion, in many fields they offer some real advantages, especially in getting into graduate school or getting the first job. (In other fields they help less, but aren’t very likely to hurt.) So, it’s not surprising that some sensible people think it’s reasonable to accept modest debt to give their kids the opportunity to go to one of those schools. There will always be some people who think that anybody who goes to one of these schools is a prestige hound, but there are uninformed opinions about everything.</p>
<p>collegehelp - graduation rates might be highly correlated with SAT scores, but SAT scores are highly correlated with family income. Also, net cost of attendance means much less than a family’s ability to pay the netCOA (public universities are notorious for awarding merit dollars to less needy families, thus keeping COA lower but leaving large gaps for need-based aid). I would not expect a correlation between net price and grad rate, but I would expect one between a college’s “percentage of need met” and grad rate.</p>
<p>Another point is that many students who require five or six years to graduate do not pay tuition for each of those years. They take a year or two off for financial reasons and save money to pay for tuition. They are not costing their parents more money; in fact, based on my experience these students typically get little if any money from their families.</p>
<p>Your final comment is particularly illuminating - a majority of students at public universities do not live in dorms. They are commuters or live off-campus in order to save money.</p>
<p>D2’s intended major is only offered at 7 schools in the nation (Stanford and 6 other large publics). No way she was getting into Stanford. So we had to send her off to school with the riff raff who don’t attend one of 30 “top privates.” No choice. Guess I’ll have to start weighing her when she comes home to make sure she doesn’t become fat, drunk, and just “undesirable” in general. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>When the argument turns to not only prestige as the main reason for going, but also better BMI, it gets absurder.</p>
<p>The hypothetical kid we’ve been discussing wouldn’t be a dropout threat at a lower tier school. Any problem with grad rates doesn’t come from that kid and his goals. It’s not like the hurdle at a state college is set higher for our “Junior.” </p>
<p>The lower grad rates reflect a portion of the student body that can’t pay, can’t attend in one full-time swoop for 4 or 6 years, or changes course mid-stream. And, those who can’t hit the bar that does exist.</p>
<p>Not the kid in this thread. It’s not Machias that would defeat him. Though it does defeat some other kids.</p>
<p>Though I’ll admit, behind his SATs, OP’s hypothetical kid does sound awfully fragile and likely to be dragged down by the slightest influences- those lowlife kids go off for fast food (yeah, I read that stupid article) and he can’t resist; next thing you know, his BMI is off.</p>
<p>This tells me all I need to know about collegehelp’s understanding of life. Really, ch, it never occurred to you that not everyone does the sleep-away-for-four-years? That there are plenty of good, hard-working people who have to stop midway through to work for a semester or year to earn money to continue for the next year? And their parents CAN’T give them extra money from hypothesized savings on not upgrading to the iPhone5. Can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.</p>
<p>What’s the point of having a Cornell (or other fancy) education if you don’t have common sense?</p>
<p>The statement about hyperbole is spot on. I think I’ve been arguing with collegehelp when I really meet his definition of parents who do sacrifice for a better college and college experience. My kids could have attended two years of community college with free tuition and housing (in the house they’ve always lived in), and then transferred. We chose to give them the opportunity to attend a good state university (I think it’s “flagship” but I’m not completely sure of that term. We did “borrow” money to do it, because our house could easily be paid for if we used the funds we have set aside for college. So we are in debt so our kids can have that opportunity. </p>
<p>It is indeed a matter of line-drawing. This is the sacrifice we felt we were able to make. Others may be able to make greater sacrifices and send their kids to top 30 private schools. (I do think the original situation of someone who makes $80,000 being able to do so is highly unlikely). Still others may be sacrificing by sending their kids to any school. I believe that there was a poster above who said she would borrow to enable her kids to go to college, but not borrow the additional to allow her kids to go to the “best.” She might not even be able to borrow that much.</p>
<p>Putting the inflamatory statements, it seems that we can mostly agree that we want to provide an education for our kids, but that we don’t want someone else who doesn’t know our situation to assume that we have an obligation to provide the best possible experience.</p>
<p>There are also clearly differences of opinion regarding how to define the “best possible experience” and what the value of the “best possible” education is.</p>
<p>I happen to be a believer in a more democratic setting for college. My experience is that in real life, you have to deal with hard workers, smart people, slackards, drunks, etc. and I believe that it is best to allow your children to learn how to deal with all sorts, rather than send your kid to a place where she will be surrounded only by people just like her. To me, the diversity is part of the university experience. I’ve always felt slightly uncomfortable that our kids went to private Catholic school, but we did pick the least elite of the choices available, and they have received a wonderful education. We also attend a church which includes in its congregation everyone from homeless people to millionaires. This is a purposeful choice on my part. </p>
<p>Others will have their own values and judgments. I’m willing to let you be.</p>
<p>Why are you spending all this time arguing that elite schools have a number of advantages? Most people will admit this, even if we’ll argue with some of the claims you are making. It still doesn’t automatically make the better school affordable to someone who can’t pay. I mean, most people would rather have a Porsche than a Honda, too, and there might be lots of legitimate reasons to prefer the Porsche, but it just isn’t feasible for most people. </p>
<p>Your remarks on crime rate/BMI/grad rate in the last few pages are just silly. Let’s suppose for a second that the crime rate is higher in lesser schools. Now suppose you were planning a vacation and found out that the crime rate in Rome was statistically higher than the crime rate in Paris. Good to know, I suppose, but not something that will play a role in most normal people’s decision making process: both are major cities with all the associated dangers, but neither is so crime-ridden that it would be rational to avoid the trip because of marginal differences in safety statistics. And, by the way, if you’re going to start doing these kinds of analyses, I’m guessing Machias, Maine (population 2,221) is much, much safer than Baltimore. Maybe we should be asking how a loving parent could send their kid to places like Yale, Penn, and JHU when they could be so much safer elsewhere.</p>
<p>You also seem to have a very dim view of human agency. I suppose there are some excellent, ambitious students who are so susceptible to outside influence that they’ll turn into overweight, drug-addled dropouts if they have to be exposed to the lesser mortals at a state school, but I don’t think it is a common scenario. Frankly, while I don’t think parents should put themselves in financial jeopardy to send their kid to an elite school in any case, I certainly don’t think it is fair to expect parents to take out loans they really can’t afford because of the chance their child will make bad decisions. At a certain point, personal responsibility needs to take over.</p>
<p>^I was thinking OP did get his education somehow covered and now wants his relatives to do it for their kid because he sees the tremendous “advantages” he reaped. </p>
<p>While that sounds nice, OP is not proving his case- not in the random links he doesn’t dig into, not by the range of examples and concerns he presents.<br>
That’s what bugs me. The sophomoric case being presented. If it is Cornell, yeeks. </p>
<p>Many of us could have taken his side and argued why some selectives, for some programs, some particulars about why the school truly is better in some fields, etc, would be a better choice when the cost numbers do work out. But what we have instead is OP dogging the simplistic and superficial reasons in a very random and swiss cheese way. The holes are so apparent; it just undermines his own case that expensive and sacrifice always work out as USNews might suggest. Sorry, but I want to say, for shame.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus- Getting back to the 9% figure for parent loans…I had meant to reply. The 9% supports the idea that parents are reluctant to take out loans. It also supports the idea that less than 9% of the posters on this thread are inclined to take loans (i.e. atypical). At least that is the way it seems to me…but, maybe I am reading selectively as apprenticeprof suggested.</p>
<p>Hunt-to which of my <em>supposed</em> hyperbolic statements are you referring? The one about graduation rates? Marijuana? I think some have exaggerated, misinterpreted, or overreacted to my statements. I’ve lost count.</p>
<p>apprenticeprof- I think the discussion of the advantages of attending a more selective school pertain to the costs-benefits analysis that every parent must subjectively undertake.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it is a debate about where to draw the line in terms of loans as a result of our subjective cost-benefits analysis.</p>
<p>I am a first generation college grad. My parents signed for plus loans fort senior year when the pell grants disappeared. I paid for the rest of school with scholarships, grants, and part-time and summer full time work. I did not go to every game or participate in Greek life but I landed a job with a fortune 50 right of undergrad. More than one of my coworkers talked to me about their child’s apparent lack of motivation and commitment to school that the parent was paying for. I will not borrow to fund 100% of my children’s education simply because it is THEIR future not mine. I do not owe them success. They need to create that for themselves. I have saved for them but they need to spend it wisely. That is part of being a grown-up. My biggest job as a parent is to work my way out of that job.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think about what I “owe” my children. I think that is strange. There are some different viewpoints about this that always fuel these discussions.</p>
Recently there have been some articles about some ivies and former female students, which might suggest the “supposedly premiere” colleges were not as excellent a fit as they might have seemed on paper at the time. It has been making me think about whether resources matter if the student doesn’t have access. Perhaps that becomes a more damaging situation than working in a more nurturing and supportive environment with fewer obvious resources. And sort of parallels my sense that supportive parents sometimes have more impact on a child’s eventual achievements than any other factor.</p>