Why rich people prefer elite schools when most others doesn’t see any wort in it?

BTW, I don’t think anyone would claim that honors college at a public is equivalent to an elite private. But that’s true in every case. Every school/program is different and you have to see what fits and what makes sense financially. And the differences could be better or worse. Even among the Ivies, there are major differences between them in how much they stress undergraduate teaching, for instance.

You also can’t make absolute statements about class sizes. For instance, it may be possible to take far more small seminar classes at a big public like UMich/UIUC than at an Ivy, depending on the major and programs you are in.

@PurpleTitan Yes, a generalization (as are most of my posts), you can always find a highly rated LA program at a public university but it is the exception more than the rule. This goes back to what I have always said about public universities in that you have to look at each major individually (where it is must less important to do this at top privates). Just because a public university isn’t in the top 100 doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a top 10 program that is highly competitive. I see too many people wanting to base there attendance at a public U based on its overall ranking and not the individual programs ranking which IMO is a big mistake. All public universities have areas of strength and weaknesses.

Excuse me, sorry for barging in. I was looking for the clam fart thread…but I see I’m interrupting. Carry on, very important work you are all doing!

Harvard has never graduated a dyslexic? Or Yale? Being neurotypical, brilliant, and creative doesn’t necessarily qualify a student for an elite school either.

My roommate’s Harvard boyfriend was severely dyslexic and almost flunked third grade because he couldn’t read. By the time I knew him he had figured out reading, but he never read for pleasure. Graduated summa cum laude in economics and went to med school.

My DD was like that in elementary school, she was on an IEP for reading. Recommended for the lowest level of math going into junior high, ended up graduating high school as the top math student and her professor at UChicago tells her she is a gifted creative writer.

It is absolutely myoptic to think that disabled kids can’t be top dogs in terms of giftedness and be suitable for top programs. If you are an expert in disabilities you would know this.

Straw men and their builders abound on this thread, utterly unnecessarily. No one made any claim that LD students cannot be gifted in some areas. In fact, quite the opposite was asserted.

It is myopic (not “myoptic”) to think that all learning disabilities are identical in kind and degree, and that those disabilities predict or even allow identical academic results. This thread, however, is not about LD, or even about giftedness.

Again…Subject of thread: The question was raised by the OP as to why “rich people” would seek an elite education – a product which is supposedly no better than a less expensive education.

Answers were provided. I provided some having to do with physical amenities, beauty, that kind of thing. It seems that some posters were attacked or opposed for giving examples of S’s and D’s (including in the same family) varied experiences. The response by some was to raise exceptions to the rule as a supposed proof against the rule. But why should anyone feel threatened and defensive because their own family made a different choice, a choice that worked somewhere between reasonably well and beautifully or even ideally? That’s why people come to this country in droves for higher education: Choice and opportunity.

In addition, for some students, the accidental existence of a high proportion of intellectually gifted students at elite universities has been beneficial after the fact, since the one thing that gifted students most often lack in K-12 education is the opportunity to develop relationships with those on their level. It’s extremely important to their development and even to their happiness. Those of us who work in the field professionally can verify it.

Most families (and I think in most cases college admissions is a family effort these days) seek what they hope and assume will optimize their student’s academic and eventually career opportunities. For many, they are simply wanting colleges with the best resources in the student’s field of interest. Others believe that “name-brand” matters to long-term success. Others would disagree about the “long-term” angle, and the studies would back up their opinion. But those are personal decisions.

“Rich people” include the thoughtful, the informed, and the misguided. They include the selfish and the generous. They include the gifted and the non-gifted.

I completely agree with @MaineLonghorn in her post about outstanding opportunities available in some publics.

Second point: Simply attending and graduating from an elite U does not in itself promise success. It still matters how well the student does there. Since I’ll be attacked for providing an example from my own family, I won’t give it. (People can PM me.) Too many posters personalize everything that all other posters say as somehow devaluing their own children and their own family decisions. Nobody should be devaluing other people’s decisions or questioning the success of their students, but neither should posters be attacked for providing possible answers to the OP’s questions. Suffice it to say that IF the student is fortunate enough and noticed enough to be accepted to an elite private, and does exceptionally well there, to be point of recognition at graduation, I will tell you that such a combination will open doors for him or her, immediately after graduation, and in turn, the substantial (i.e., not “social”) connections established right after that graduation will tend to sustain that graduate deep into the early years of his or her career. Simply an elite diploma will not necessarily accomplish the same thing, and I agree, again, with @MaineLonghorn that achievement in an Honors college or any other great opportunity at a public can launch a student into long-term success.

“the opportunity to develop relationships with those on their level. It’s extremely important to their development and even to their happiness”

Seems to me that that is a good reason for parents to put their kids in a HS situation where they fit with their peers. Those families that would be full-pay at a private would be able to afford that. I’m of the opinion that spending money on HS is more important as an intellectually top kid would be able to find peers and opportunities that suit him/her for free or close to it at the college level but that is less likely at the HS level unless you are in the district/state/city of a top public magnet.

@PurpleTitan

Indeed, were this possible. It is less than ideal to wait for college for this. It’s simply that, depending on location, such K-12 opportunities can be sparse or nonexistent, despite the best searching. Or, there are marked “political” tradeoffs in some cases, given the atmosphere at some such schools (administration, not students). Again, too anecdotal for a thread like this; you may PM me for clarification.

Thank you for your measured response.

@epiphany “In addition, for some students, the accidental existence of a high proportion of intellectually gifted students at elite universities has been beneficial after the fact, since the one thing that gifted students most often lack in K-12 education is the opportunity to develop relationships with those on their level.”

I thought you made some excellent points about why rich parents prefer elite schools, but the above comment was not one of them.

That comment presupposes that a “gifted” student who has 1,000 other gifted students in his class to hang out with at a large state university would not find the relationships he would get at an “elite” university where there are fewer than 300 students in his class who are gifted. And somehow the reason this would be hard is that there are 4,000 regular smart but “ungifted” students instead of 700 “regular smart but ungifted” students or because the 700 regular smart students at an “elite” college are academically stronger than the 4,000 regular smart students at a state university.

I don’t believe it matters whether if the 700 students who are smart but not especially gifted at an “elite” college are superior to the 4,000 students who are smart but not especially gifted at a state university. Who cares? Only the parents of those 700 students who want to make sure their child gets the benefit of being considered superior to all the students at the state college merely because of their presence at the “elite” college.

To me, that’s the reason rich people prefer elite schools - so that their children are considered among the “elite”. Even if they are not. Even if there may be 1,000 students at the state university who are academically superior to them. Because they know that because those 1,000 students make up only 20% of the freshman class, they don’t get the benefit of being automatically perceived as “intellectually gifted”.

But there is no reason that a gifted student at a public university would have trouble finding other gifted students among 1,000 gifted freshman among a class of 5,000.

There is this unspoken assumption that the mere presence of less academic students brings the other students down to their level. Somehow if those less academic students are 50% of a class instead of 25% of a class, it brings the whole class down. And those gifted students will struggle to find suitable “peers” because nearly all the students at those “elite” schools are peers.

Really gifted students don’t care about what the students in the bottom half of the college are doing. It doesn’t matter to them whether the bottom half is taking easy math or science classes or is taking somewhat more rigorous math and science classes. What matters is what the students who are at the top are doing and whether there are advanced classes to challenge them where they will find their peers. And that certainly happens in large state universities where there are so many students that there are many hundreds to fill those advanced classes.

@observer12
We’ll simply have to disagree. Again, this is another Straw Man response to points I did not make but which have been imagined, and from which people develop unnecessary defensiveness. I’m a huge fan of public U’s, but they are not for everyone. Not going to keep arguing against points I never asserted. Have a lovely day. Ditto for @austinmshauri who has also quite clearly misinterpreted.

Al this “never” and “none” are creations of posters that are entirely unnecessary, and surely do not speak to the Why Rich People would want to attend an elite U.

Of course, there are several problems with the OP’s premises from the start – such as "rich people’ are some monolithic group (which I spoke about recently), and, conversely that poorer or non-rich people would not necessarily want the same thing as rich people seek. There are a host of problems with these presuppositions.

Not every assertion on CC requires replies of “but not me,” “but not my D/ my S.” Not necessary to personalize every discussion and raise objections when neither one’s own parental choices nor one’s own student choices have been attacked. One of my 2 children is LD, and I am very glad that Columbia lost her application. I’m also glad that, although she got into Barnard with full $$, she chose not to attend. That has nothing to do with her brilliance and exceptional talent (as judged even more by others). It was just better for many reasons.

Completely separate topics:
LD
IQ
Standardized testing
Publics “versus” privates
Rich “versus” not-rich preferences, as if that also is binary.

Parenting is not a zero-sum game, folks. Nor is college admissions. Nor is college life. Nor is life after college.