^ Yes, and even compared to decades ago, the amount of “perks” available to students at colleges of many tiers is considerably more. For instance, when I was at an Ivy-equivalent, for engineering students, they had just started one short-term study-abroad program in one country (even now, the study-abroad offerings are a bit middling). Now the school has an entrepreneurship center, flies kids out to DC, NYC and SF to network, and offers to fund unpaid internships.
But it’s not only schools at that level. UIUC offers a plethora of study-abroad programs, many of which are almost tuition-free (you pay a few thousand dollars) as well as (like many big publics, actually) the chance to study in DC at regular rates (nice if you are in-state).
UT-Dallas offers NMS students special perks (besides a near-full-ride): special lectures and cultural events; money to study abroad, etc.
But some perks aren’t even restricted to honors students. Everyone there gets a free pass on the public transportation down there (which is convenient) and can get free tickets to cultural events like the opera, symphony, etc.
Plus, STEM research opportunities are a relative strength of public research U’s (especially for the students in a good honors college at one). You look at the Goldwater fellowship winners and publics are well-represented (roughly half), including students from places people on CC probably would not expect like Northern Arizona. In fact, considering that most honors colleges are pretty small (other than Barrett, most are closer to the size of a LAC or even smaller), the rate at which students at the better public honors colleges win major scholarships/fellowships like the Goldwater (or Marshall, etc.) is probably on par with the top tier of privates
A long way of saying that it’s not really comparing apples to apples when you contrast a state school experience of decades ago with a private school experience now.
Perhaps the cheating parents also felt that they needed to give their underachieving kids at least a veneer of achievement and competence signaled by a university that is not that easy to get into, so that when the kids get a job through connections that they would not otherwise be competitive for, their getting the job might seem at least somewhat plausible.
Some people do not understand, I have nothing against those other schools, but non-elite colleges are simply FULL of plebs. I mean, there is absolutely nobody to talk to about whether a Swiss or French chalet is a better place for a winter ski vacation. Can you believe that some of them even fly coach?! Shocking, I know.
Champagne on the veranda at 4, dear friends, don’t be late - I’m talking to YOU, @privatebanker. Last time you came so late that we had to open a new bottle, since the previous open bottle had warmed above the optimal temperature. I heard that you wrote somewhere that non-elite colleges can actually provide a good education. Some of those ideas you have are quite shocking, you know?
@PurpleTitan, do be a dear and remember to tell us some of your quaint stories about, what did you call them? Ah, engineers. Imagine making money without an investment portfolio.
I guess I’m in the minority but I never thought of this community as ‘unwelcoming’. And I don’t begrudge anyone trying to decide between Princeton and Pomona or Duke and Penn. Kudos to them. If we roll our collective eyes at those those types of threads, well isn’t that ‘unwelcoming’ too? That’s just another type of ax to grind. The kind where we project, that because a poster has some excellent options, that they must be elitist or trying to flaunt their successes. Not always true.
Congratulations to your D. My daughter also presented a scientific poster at one of those “Non-Elite” universities yesterday. She is a sophomore who has also been in her lab since Day 1 freshman year. However, she presented a poster last year as well, so she has experience. She was awarded a nice stipend last summer working at a large children’s hospital doing research. She will be working with a professor at one of those “Elite” schools this summer, as a matter of fact. Oh, yeah, she was also nominated for a national scholarship by her “Non-Elite” university based on her research. And she will spend summer abroad next year doing research…mostly covered by scholarship. Her basketball team is in the Final Four after beating a so-called “Elite” team. I will tell you that this stuff happens all the time at “normal” schools. I also cannot imagine a better place to spend our savings (although we don’t have to spend much, since most of tuition is covered by scholarship).
Hi @wisteria100 Happy Saturday everyone! I love Saturday’s as an aside. Lol.
Wisteria - That wasn’t what I was trying articulate at all. Of course that student deserves a place to come with a legitimate question. I do question whether all are true dilemmas or a desire for public adulation.
I said, to paraphrase myself, that a less threatening and demeaning environment that would welcome conversations to help the vast majority of students.
That CC would have a greater social utility. If the mission of this forum is actually to promote higher ed.
And there is room for parents and students of the traditional elite schools to consider that perhaps their evaluation of the value of other schools is not balanced.
@MWolf Wolfie my good man. So very sorry I missed the do. I was playing squash at the u club and I stepped on the ball. Had to head to the cottage to get some r and r.
@RW1 please clarify what you meant about “the level of support.” So the fact that 200 students stopped by to see the poster, including cheerleaders and athletes is the support you think is unique to an elite school?
The ultra wealthy will almost always avoid a very good highly ranked affordable public compared to a private that is top dollar because they can brag, flaunt their status, wealth, and paid for false prestige which is all that matters to many of them. I see it everyday in the “wealthy” area I live in and have never bought into the petty shallowness.
@RW1 Well, she can’t do that all on her own, now can she? Do you mean support, like her PIs? The professors who wrote her LORs for the national scholarship? The professors who she sees frequently at office hours? The honors college staff who encouraged her to apply for two board positions at school? That support?
I am a big proponent of balance in the consideration of schools. And to avoid toxic elitism.
It is not a uniquely ultra rich phenomenon at all.
There is no “ultra rich” monolith. There are wonderful and caring people in all economic strata. There are less nice as well.
Most people love their children above all else. This pride, protective streak and general concern drive most of one’s decision making. Wealthier folks and not as wealthy.
I do find there’s a bit more of prevalent as to what you describe with dynastic wealth more than self made. But even that is not an absolute.
It’s not the size of the checking account that we should be railing against. It’s the non balanced approach to giving advice and our own belief systems.
Wealthy people can choose the private college because they can. And they are the 1 percent. Why we spend so much time on them and thei decisions is actually worth discussing.
I am personally here for the other 98 percent. To help offer any limited insight I have so they don’t get sucked into these prestige and financial whirlpools.
I view it as an investment in a certain set of “tools”. The money we set aside is not available for kids to fund a home, buy cars, travel, etc. It’s simply for a set of tools we feel will give them a better chance to build the life they want. I’ll also add that it’s not about equality towards my kids. If one is not the type that will use the tools provided, I wouldn’t waste the investment on them. That’s not negative in any way. Also depends on what they want to do. As an example, D is a performing artist. Wants to be on Broadway. Independendent of schooling, what really matters is talent, especially at the audition. Certain schools may provide an advantage (network, perhaps better training, performance opportunities), but at the end of the day, it will come down to her audition skills. So minus the elite BFA programs (which are even more difficult to acquire than a Harvard admission - 1500 auditions for 20 spots - yikes!) would attending school X provide the “tools” vs. school Y? If so, I would provide the resources. If not, not. So a combination of the kid and the opportunities presented.
@TheGreyKing (post #13) “surrounded by only the very smartest and most intellectually oriented students.”
This comments explains why rich parents want their kids in these schools. This completely false belief that “only” the very smartest and most intellectually oriented students are there and since their kid is there, he is certified as one of the very smartest and most intellectually oriented! Just like the Trump sons and Ivanka! Just like Jared Kushner. We are supposed to believe that only the “VERY smartest” and “most intellectually oriented students” could ever be admitted to this school. (For the record, there are lots and lots of extremely smart and intellectually oriented students at Williams and a much higher concentration of them than at a “non-elite” college. But the false belief that those are the ONLY students there is exactly why these parents want their kids there.)
The NY Times ran a very insightful piece recently that explained it:
“We still like to picture our higher-education system as the linchpin of a meritocracy, like a public utility that sorts the accomplished from the rest. We instinctively conflate elite schooling with worth. The idea of unqualified kids getting into Stanford or Georgetown may rankle us, but this scandal should also call into question the outsize reputations of such schools. They exist partly through a bargain in which wealthy elites commingle with the highest-achieving students of the lower and middle classes. The wealthy launder their privilege by allowing select others to earn their way into its orbit. And the intelligence and success of hardworking peers makes a wealthy wastrel seem qualified by association: Maybe he graduated with straight C’s, a drinking problem and an unearned job at the family business, but he went to Yale — isn’t that where smart people go?”
There are brilliant middle class, poor and yes, some very brilliant rich students at “elite schools”. And there are also a fair amount of mediocre but very rich students. They are there because people keep repeating the completely false narrative that these colleges have “ONLY the very smartest…” students.
They don’t. And there may be overall 10 or 20 times as many “very smartest” students at the typical large flagship state university as there are at small liberal arts colleges that have more students from the top 1% than from the entire bottom 60%. But to parents seeking validation of their parenting skills, the fact that there are ALSO students there who just aren’t up to snuff that their child might have to associate with is just not acceptable. What if their friends assumed their child was one of the “not smart” ones at the state flagship? When all they have to do to avoid that terrible fate of their friends thinking their kid might not be smart is to send them to an “elite” school that people “know” admits ONLY the very smartest students. That way their child is certified as one of the best and brightest – what better way to spend their money?
Those parents need the validation of saying that their child is in a university or college that admits ONLY “the very smartest and most intellectually oriented students”. It absolutely doesn’t matter if that isn’t true at all. As long as the myth keeps being believed, spending the money is worth it.
I don’t know if you can post links to articles but it is by Amanda Hess, in the NY Times on March 27, 2019.
This is nothing new. I recall Shakespeare writing about a wastrel and drunk prince that flagstaff tries to help straighten out before he became the king. And it turned out he was a great king. Was it Richard? Help me out people. It was a long time ago.
But parts of the article above are also flawed. As though the drunken scoundrel is a ne’er do well and dummy. Not fit to rub elbows with the super smart middle clsss kid.
Many things. The middle class kid benefits from gaining access to those with capital. And connections. They become friends. That’s a good thing. There’s social utility in that.
The wastrel’s life with money does assure ease. Love. Guidance. Parental involvement and shared memories. They might be depressed, lonely or misunderstood too. To label them all as caricatures is wrong too.
Not all ultra rich students are not qualified. I bet bill gate’s kid is pretty bright. The middle class kid that becomes his school chum may help young mr gates see the world differently. And help support different things in life. It’s a guess.
The potentially bright but unaccomplished wastrel as described didn’t earn their spot. That’s undeniable.
However, the money they donate has a greater social impact on many than was lost by the one, more capable student, who will find an equally great spot somewhere else. They usually end up as the professors at the schools that passed them over.
Is it fair. No. But as many try to say in these threads, power is only assigned because we give it power. When we start universally accepting many schools as coequal opportunities and stop labeling things as elite, tippy top etc , this can change.
Sorry, I strongly disagree with the premise. For wealthy families, its not a waste. (They’ll never miss the cash.)
But the fact is that “elite schools” (as you have termed them) have more resources to offer undergrads which is a big plus for the academically inclined or those interested in grad/professional school.
Where is this free college education? Our instate publics cost $35k/year. Privates, at 2x, offer a better value prop.
I’m not sure if you are replying to me, but I was answering the original question. And I was responding to what is very typical – someone posting that an elite college or university ONLY admits the “the very smartest and most intellectually oriented students”.
Why wouldn’t you buy your child that credibility if you can? It doesn’t matter if your kid is a “wastrel” (few are) or just a kid with an above average academic record who would never be considered one of the “very smartest and most intellectually oriented students” if he were middle class.
That’s the point of the article. The myth that those elite colleges “only” have the very smartest students is important to rich families. It’s worth paying a lot of money (on top of the high tuition) for.
No I wasn’t replying to you. I completely agree with you. The article you posted was excellent. But cross labeling and caricatures used by the author aren’t helpful to the dialogue, to me. Villain-ization of the so-called donor class students as whole is as wrong as it is inaccurate.
And all the parents aren’t evil doers as well.
I’m not socialist and some of becomes a reporters opportinity to leverage a poitical viewpoint into a different question.
Thanks, sorry I misunderstood. And I agree that it isn’t about “villianization” of the so-called donor class, just understanding what their motives are.
I do believe some of them wouldn’t be as motivated to cheat if there wasn’t a myth that every student at those elite colleges was the “very smartest and most intellectually oriented” or they would not have been admitted.
But then again, others from that donor class – the very richest of them – would probably not be as motivated to donate millions of dollars legally or fund a new building if that myth was dispelled.