Can someone explain the lure of selective colleges?

[Anonymous]

^ have strong alumni support

Off to get coffee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I shave some friends and colleagues who have degrees from the “lesser” Ivies or good LACs and many of them told me that in retrospect, they should have attended big state schools. The main reason is not because of academics but they don’t enjoy their alumni lives that much. They don’t feel connected to their respective alma maters, while many big state schools offer bigtime athletics programs which makes it easier to stay connected to your alma mater.

I actually observe the opposite...at least in the %age of alumni returning to schools for events and gathering for local alumni club events. I mean if your connection to a school only goes as far as being able to gather at the "Michigan" bar in DC to watch the football game, then not much one can do with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An obvious allure is that if your family makes say $100,000 you can attend most of the top schools for free or nearly free. No idea what your state "land-grant" school might offer...perhaps the same because of the stats you have to attend one of the top schools (??). BTW...only on DCUM does anybody re

fer to schools as land-grant.

I went to Clemson and they always referred to themselves as land-grant. What's the issue with land-grant?

Because nobody cares if a school is land grant or not.

You mean YOU don't care. I am sorry your insight is so limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An obvious allure is that if your family makes say $100,000 you can attend most of the top schools for free or nearly free. No idea what your state "land-grant" school might offer...perhaps the same because of the stats you have to attend one of the top schools (??). BTW...only on DCUM does anybody re

fer to schools as land-grant.

I went to Clemson and they always referred to themselves as land-grant. What's the issue with land-grant?

Because nobody cares if a school is land grant or not.

You mean YOU don't care. I am sorry your insight is so limited.

Explain why anyone should care if a school is a land grant school vs. just a good school. I have never heard someone say..."you know I was about to matriculate at School X, but then I found out it is not a land-grant school...so now I am going to school Y".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I shave some friends and colleagues who have degrees from the “lesser” Ivies or good LACs and many of them told me that in retrospect, they should have attended big state schools. The main reason is not because of academics but they don’t enjoy their alumni lives that much. They don’t feel connected to their respective alma maters, while many big state schools offer bigtime athletics programs which makes it easier to stay connected to your alma mater.

I actually observe the opposite...at least in the %age of alumni returning to schools for events and gathering for local alumni club events. I mean if your connection to a school only goes as far as being able to gather at the "Michigan" bar in DC to watch the football game, then not much one can do with that.

I agree. I went to a SLAC and attend all reunions and local get-togethers. My friends who went to big state schools think it's crazy and say they would never entertain the thought.

Because my graduating class was about 450, I know a lot of the people who attend the reunions and I even know some of the people who live in the DC area who were 1-2 classes above and below me. So, I am always assured to see familiar faces.

If you go to a random Michigan bar, what are the odds you know many other folks there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I shave some friends and colleagues who have degrees from the “lesser” Ivies or good LACs and many of them told me that in retrospect, they should have attended big state schools. The main reason is not because of academics but they don’t enjoy their alumni lives that much. They don’t feel connected to their respective alma maters, while many big state schools offer bigtime athletics programs which makes it easier to stay connected to your alma mater.

I actually observe the opposite...at least in the %age of alumni returning to schools for events and gathering for local alumni club events. I mean if your connection to a school only goes as far as being able to gather at the "Michigan" bar in DC to watch the football game, then not much one can do with that.

I agree. I went to a SLAC and attend all reunions and local get-togethers. My friends who went to big state schools think it's crazy and say they would never entertain the thought.

Because my graduating class was about 450, I know a lot of the people who attend the reunions and I even know some of the people who live in the DC area who were 1-2 classes above and below me. So, I am always assured to see familiar faces.

If you go to a random Michigan bar, what are the odds you know many other folks there?

That's not really the point of going to a Michigan or a UMD or a UCLA or UT Austin. The point is to take a wide variety of classes in a diverse setting and have a diverse friend group based off of the (much more diverse) student bodies that state flagships have over SLACs. Taking classes with amazing, world-class researchers and working in their lab while having a much more "real world" experience than some sheltered environment like Carleton or Vassar is way better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I shave some friends and colleagues who have degrees from the “lesser” Ivies or good LACs and many of them told me that in retrospect, they should have attended big state schools. The main reason is not because of academics but they don’t enjoy their alumni lives that much. They don’t feel connected to their respective alma maters, while many big state schools offer bigtime athletics programs which makes it easier to stay connected to your alma mater.

I actually observe the opposite...at least in the %age of alumni returning to schools for events and gathering for local alumni club events. I mean if your connection to a school only goes as far as being able to gather at the "Michigan" bar in DC to watch the football game, then not much one can do with that.

I agree. I went to a SLAC and attend all reunions and local get-togethers. My friends who went to big state schools think it's crazy and say they would never entertain the thought.

Because my graduating class was about 450, I know a lot of the people who attend the reunions and I even know some of the people who live in the DC area who were 1-2 classes above and below me. So, I am always assured to see familiar faces.

If you go to a random Michigan bar, what are the odds you know many other folks there?

That's not really the point of going to a Michigan or a UMD or a UCLA or UT Austin. The point is to take a wide variety of classes in a diverse setting and have a diverse friend group based off of the (much more diverse) student bodies that state flagships have over SLACs. Taking classes with amazing, world-class researchers and working in their lab while having a much more "real world" experience than some sheltered environment like Carleton or Vassar is way better.

Don't disagree, but the previous responses were in response specifically to how tight the alumni network is at a large state school vs. some of the selective colleges.

Of course, the irony is that Michigan, Berkeley and several other state schools are selective colleges as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I shave some friends and colleagues who have degrees from the “lesser” Ivies or good LACs and many of them told me that in retrospect, they should have attended big state schools. The main reason is not because of academics but they don’t enjoy their alumni lives that much. They don’t feel connected to their respective alma maters, while many big state schools offer bigtime athletics programs which makes it easier to stay connected to your alma mater.

I actually observe the opposite...at least in the %age of alumni returning to schools for events and gathering for local alumni club events. I mean if your connection to a school only goes as far as being able to gather at the "Michigan" bar in DC to watch the football game, then not much one can do with that.

I agree. I went to a SLAC and attend all reunions and local get-togethers. My friends who went to big state schools think it's crazy and say they would never entertain the thought.

Because my graduating class was about 450, I know a lot of the people who attend the reunions and I even know some of the people who live in the DC area who were 1-2 classes above and below me. So, I am always assured to see familiar faces.

If you go to a random Michigan bar, what are the odds you know many other folks there?

That's not really the point of going to a Michigan or a UMD or a UCLA or UT Austin. The point is to take a wide variety of classes in a diverse setting and have a diverse friend group based off of the (much more diverse) student bodies that state flagships have over SLACs. Taking classes with amazing, world-class researchers and working in their lab while having a much more "real world" experience than some sheltered environment like Carleton or Vassar is way better.

Don't disagree, but the previous responses were in response specifically to how tight the alumni network is at a large state school vs. some of the selective colleges.

Of course, the irony is that Michigan, Berkeley and several other state schools are selective colleges as well.

You know what’s hilarious reading this? My DH went to GMU, graduated in 1999. Got his first job the good old fashioned way sending in resumes. He got laid off in the dot com bust in 2001. He then reached out to his fraternity network (which at the time was a yahoo group) saying he was looking for a job and ended up getting hired by a fraternity brother who was too old for him to even know in person when at Mason. Ended up getting a 30% pay bump from the old job he got laid off from. He still goes out with those guys and does an annual ski trip, beach trips with families, and poker nights and they absolutely help each other out beyond a doubt. The great thing is a TON of people stayed local so it’s been a spectacular resource for networking especially in the IT business community. All these guys are now VPs, directors , and some even own their own companies. One guy is an IT sales recruiter that everyone uses. I know for a fact that VT, UVA, and JMU have great local as well. I bet it’s harder for people who didn’t go to school in this area since so many people moved back to nova after college due to the incredibly pool of job opportunities. It’s human nature to lean on your friends or people who have shared experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An obvious allure is that if your family makes say $100,000 you can attend most of the top schools for free or nearly free. No idea what your state "land-grant" school might offer...perhaps the same because of the stats you have to attend one of the top schools (??). BTW...only on DCUM does anybody re

fer to schools as land-grant.

I went to Clemson and they always referred to themselves as land-grant. What's the issue with land-grant?

Because nobody cares if a school is land grant or not.

You mean YOU don't care. I am sorry your insight is so limited.

Explain why anyone should care if a school is a land grant school vs. just a good school. I have never heard someone say..."you know I was about to matriculate at School X, but then I found out it is not a land-grant school...so now I am going to school Y".

Good grief, if you can't figure out how it's relevant in this thread, I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An obvious allure is that if your family makes say $100,000 you can attend most of the top schools for free or nearly free. No idea what your state "land-grant" school might offer...perhaps the same because of the stats you have to attend one of the top schools (??). BTW...only on DCUM does anybody re

fer to schools as land-grant.

I went to Clemson and they always referred to themselves as land-grant. What's the issue with land-grant?

Because nobody cares if a school is land grant or not.

You mean YOU don't care. I am sorry your insight is so limited.

Explain why anyone should care if a school is a land grant school vs. just a good school. I have never heard someone say..."you know I was about to matriculate at School X, but then I found out it is not a land-grant school...so now I am going to school Y".

Good grief, if you can't figure out how it's relevant in this thread, I don't know what to tell you.

So...you can't explain it. Exactly what I thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I shave some friends and colleagues who have degrees from the “lesser” Ivies or good LACs and many of them told me that in retrospect, they should have attended big state schools. The main reason is not because of academics but they don’t enjoy their alumni lives that much. They don’t feel connected to their respective alma maters, while many big state schools offer bigtime athletics programs which makes it easier to stay connected to your alma mater.

I actually observe the opposite...at least in the %age of alumni returning to schools for events and gathering for local alumni club events. I mean if your connection to a school only goes as far as being able to gather at the "Michigan" bar in DC to watch the football game, then not much one can do with that.

I agree. I went to a SLAC and attend all reunions and local get-togethers. My friends who went to big state schools think it's crazy and say they would never entertain the thought.

Because my graduating class was about 450, I know a lot of the people who attend the reunions and I even know some of the people who live in the DC area who were 1-2 classes above and below me. So, I am always assured to see familiar faces.

If you go to a random Michigan bar, what are the odds you know many other folks there?

That's not really the point of going to a Michigan or a UMD or a UCLA or UT Austin. The point is to take a wide variety of classes in a diverse setting and have a diverse friend group based off of the (much more diverse) student bodies that state flagships have over SLACs. Taking classes with amazing, world-class researchers and working in their lab while having a much more "real world" experience than some sheltered environment like Carleton or Vassar is way better.

Don't disagree, but the previous responses were in response specifically to how tight the alumni network is at a large state school vs. some of the selective colleges.

Of course, the irony is that Michigan, Berkeley and several other state schools are selective colleges as well.

You know what’s hilarious reading this? My DH went to GMU, graduated in 1999. Got his first job the good old fashioned way sending in resumes. He got laid off in the dot com bust in 2001. He then reached out to his fraternity network (which at the time was a yahoo group) saying he was looking for a job and ended up getting hired by a fraternity brother who was too old for him to even know in person when at Mason. Ended up getting a 30% pay bump from the old job he got laid off from. He still goes out with those guys and does an annual ski trip, beach trips with families, and poker nights and they absolutely help each other out beyond a doubt. The great thing is a TON of people stayed local so it’s been a spectacular resource for networking especially in the IT business community. All these guys are now VPs, directors , and some even own their own companies. One guy is an IT sales recruiter that everyone uses. I know for a fact that VT, UVA, and JMU have great local as well. I bet it’s harder for people who didn’t go to school in this area since so many people moved back to nova after college due to the incredibly pool of job opportunities. It’s human nature to lean on your friends or people who have shared experiences.

I am with you 100% and how much people seem to discount location in terms of jobs when choosing a college.

Not to dump on Tulane, but I don't see the point of going to Tulane and then trying to get a job in the DMV where there just aren't that many graduates. Now, if you are staying in NO or probably even Houston...tons of alums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An obvious allure is that if your family makes say $100,000 you can attend most of the top schools for free or nearly free. No idea what your state "land-grant" school might offer...perhaps the same because of the stats you have to attend one of the top schools (??). BTW...only on DCUM does anybody re

fer to schools as land-grant.

I went to Clemson and they always referred to themselves as land-grant. What's the issue with land-grant?

Because nobody cares if a school is land grant or not.

You mean YOU don't care. I am sorry your insight is so limited.

Explain why anyone should care if a school is a land grant school vs. just a good school. I have never heard someone say..."you know I was about to matriculate at School X, but then I found out it is not a land-grant school...so now I am going to school Y".

Good grief, if you can't figure out how it's relevant in this thread, I don't know what to tell you.

So...you can't explain it. Exactly what I thought.

Onus is on you, dear. YOU don't care. YOU can't make the connection. YOU claim no one else does. Like I said, limited insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An obvious allure is that if your family makes say $100,000 you can attend most of the top schools for free or nearly free. No idea what your state "land-grant" school might offer...perhaps the same because of the stats you have to attend one of the top schools (??). BTW...only on DCUM does anybody re

fer to schools as land-grant.

I went to Clemson and they always referred to themselves as land-grant. What's the issue with land-grant?

Because nobody cares if a school is land grant or not.

You mean YOU don't care. I am sorry your insight is so limited.

Explain why anyone should care if a school is a land grant school vs. just a good school. I have never heard someone say..."you know I was about to matriculate at School X, but then I found out it is not a land-grant school...so now I am going to school Y".

Good grief, if you can't figure out how it's relevant in this thread, I don't know what to tell you.

So...you can't explain it. Exactly what I thought.

Onus is on you, dear. YOU don't care. YOU can't make the connection. YOU claim no one else does. Like I said, limited insight.

Onus is on me to do what...state the obvious, that nobody gives a s**t if a school is a land-grant school or not? You literally can't explain it which is why you obfuscate and evade. Laughable how you are unable to explain it.

[Anonymous]

Running the Net Price Calculators, the selective schools are among the best resourced and give the best financial aid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Running the Net Price Calculators, the selective schools are among the best resourced and give the best financial aid!

Yes, for the poor the lure is obvious. It’s a free ride.

For the middle class it’s much less clear, as anyone who can get into Harvard can likely also get a full ride at a less selective school. So even with a substantial need-based discount that brings the COA down to $25k per year, you’re looking at $100,000 of unnecessary debt over four years.