Alabama for free or a more elite school that is less than free-ride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Grisham went to Mississippi State then to Ole Miss for law school. He was doing just fine for himself career wise before he even became John Grisham the writer.

Miss St. and Ole Miss are terrific schools --- IF you want to live in Oxford, Mississippi. For some in this area that is an awfully big IF.

[Anonymous]

DC is flooded with people with different degrees from all over. They come with their state school degree and may work for their home state member of Congress then end up working as a lobbyist. It is a revolving door on the Hill with people from everywhere.

[Anonymous]

That is a good point someone made about John Grisham. So if your child wants to be John Grisham, you should send him or her to Ole Miss, and if your child wants to be a Fortune 500 CEO, you can send them anywhere. If you want your child to be an underachieving resentful kid, apparently Harvard is the place.

[Anonymous]

John Grisham might not agree - he sent his kids to UNC and UVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Grisham might not agree - he sent his kids to UNC and UVA

Um, yes. And he lives in North Carolina, so he sent one of this kids to his state flagship. Same thing his parents did with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different PP (the "who keeps bringing up Harvard?" PP). The Harvard grads I know are go-getters but generally in mid-level jobs, with the exception of one real standout in the Administration. Which proves... nothing! We are all talking about very small sample sizes.

But a correction seems necessary. By "do better" 21:20 is probably referring to salaries. Studies have shown that Harvard grads to better salary-wise, right out of college, than grads of much less competitive schools. I don't think that's even up for debate. Employers see the word "Harvard" and assume rightly or wrongly that anybody who got in must be smart and hard-working. That's called "credentialling" because the Harvard degree is a sort of credential that gets a kid in the door for one of the 10 interviews. (OK, the kids start with a leg up, but what they do afterwards depends on them.)

Agree with the point made earlier that something like 0.03% of students go to Harvard, which leaves plenty of great jobs for hard-working kids from even the less select colleges.

I'm the PP who noted that 0.03% of college students are enrolled at Harvard. Just want to note that important qualification you make above is "right out of college." Studies have also shown that over the course of one's lifetime, the marginal value of a Harvard/elite degree declines to zero.

But as you also note, why the heck do we continue to talk about Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John Grisham went to Mississippi State then to Ole Miss for law school. He was doing just fine for himself career wise before he even became John Grisham the writer.

Miss St. and Ole Miss are terrific schools --- IF you want to live in Oxford, Mississippi. For some in this area that is an awfully big IF.

Oxford, Mississippi is absolutely gorgeous! A hidden gem in an otherwise dismal state. We lived there for two years and loved it!

Mississippi State is in Starkville - Horrible town. Just awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:John Grisham might not agree - he sent his kids to UNC and UVA

Um, yes. And he lives in North Carolina, so he sent one of this kids to his state flagship. Same thing his parents did with him.

He also has homes in Virginia and Mississippi so that isn't it -- and I don't think he needed in state tuition. UNC and UVA are top 25 schools

[Anonymous]

Only 10 percent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies graduated from Ivy League schools. More of them went to the University of Wisconsin than Harvard. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB115853818747665842
Where you go to school matters very little, unless you want to be an academic, in which case, I hope money is no object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things I find odd about many discussions on this forum is how many people treat public universities as if they were just another school. Public universities are typically designed for the students of the state, and at most, you will find that the students overwhelmingly come from the home state, where tuition is lower. At Alabama, somewhere in excess of 60-70% of the students come from Alabama with most of the others coming from Georgia, MS and other Southern states. At Minnesota, which is an excellent public university, 2/3 come from Minnesota, and another significant chunk come from North and South Dakota. Most of the students who attend these universities end up staying in the state after graduation -- which makes sense since that is where their contacts are (lots of data show the importance of your college connections later in life) and the recruiters are more likely to come from that state or region. There are a handful of Universities that break the mold, are truly international in reputation and draw a diverse student body but you can count them generally on one hand -- Berkeley, Michigan and UVA, and then you might add in UCLA, UNC, Indiana for certain subjects such as music, probably Texas and Minnesota, though Texas is a huge school in a huge state that will have most of its presence and influence in Texas. Most of the rest are really very good state schools but not obvious choices for somewhere from a different part of the country who does not have an interest in staying in the area where they attend college. Btw, University of MD is a very good public school, not that expensive for in-state students, and within the Mid-Atlantic, a much better choice than say Alabama. Penn State, ditto, good state school particularly for the Mid-Atlantic region.

This is a good post. And it hints at a related issue that is coming up in this discussion: that people who are looking for cheaper alternatives to elite colleges should look at public schools. Well, yes....but often that makes sense only as long as the public schools in question are in your state of residence. For a Virginia or DC or MD resident, the cost of Berkeley or Michigan will equal that of an elite private university. You would never choose one of those schools over an elite private because of cost. Perhaps for other reasons, but not to save money.

I disagree about state schools (for out of state residents) not being cheaper than private schools. Even out of state, many (most) state schools are cheaper. My DC is looking at Rutgers, Penn state, Temple, UMass. They are in the 30-40 range rather than the 50-60 range. Some state schools like Michigan, UVA and U of Vermont are about the same as privates.

The PP who wrote about state residents going to their state schools missed the idea that some kids want to experience something new and get away from home. Moving to a new city or state and meeting people from another part of the country is interesting and exposes you to new ideas and expands your horizons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only 10 percent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies graduated from Ivy League schools. More of them went to the University of Wisconsin than Harvard. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB115853818747665842
Where you go to school matters very little, unless you want to be an academic, in which case, I hope money is no object.

Yes, only 10% of CEOs graduated from ivy league schools. Of course, only .5% of people graduated from Ivy league schools, so I'm not sure that number shows what you think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 10 percent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies graduated from Ivy League schools. More of them went to the University of Wisconsin than Harvard. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB115853818747665842
Where you go to school matters very little, unless you want to be an academic, in which case, I hope money is no object.

Yes, only 10% of CEOs graduated from ivy league schools. Of course, only .5% of people graduated from Ivy league schools, so I'm not sure that number shows what you think it does.

I'm not sure it shows what *you* think it does, actually. Yes, a higher share of CEOs graduated from ivy league schools compared with the general population of college grads. But that will be true no matter what high-level field you look at. Ivy League grads will likely be more concentrated in medicine and academia, as well. I think the research shows, though, that these grads aren't more concentrated in "elite" professions *because* they went to the Ivy League, but rather because they were elite students to begin with, and elite students are the ones who predominate in those professions. The research shows that elite students tend to excel no matter where they go to school. And that explains why 90% of CEOs went somewhere else and still got to be CEOs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 10 percent of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies graduated from Ivy League schools. More of them went to the University of Wisconsin than Harvard. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB115853818747665842
Where you go to school matters very little, unless you want to be an academic, in which case, I hope money is no object.

Yes, only 10% of CEOs graduated from ivy league schools. Of course, only .5% of people graduated from Ivy league schools, so I'm not sure that number shows what you think it does.

I'm not sure it shows what *you* think it does, actually. Yes, a higher share of CEOs graduated from ivy league schools compared with the general population of college grads. But that will be true no matter what high-level field you look at. Ivy League grads will likely be more concentrated in medicine and academia, as well. I think the research shows, though, that these grads aren't more concentrated in "elite" professions *because* they went to the Ivy League, but rather because they were elite students to begin with, and elite students are the ones who predominate in those professions. The research shows that elite students tend to excel no matter where they go to school. And that explains why 90% of CEOs went somewhere else and still got to be CEOs.

Yes. It is directly relevant to OP's question regarding whether a "Stanford" degree was worth paying (much) more for than a free degree from a state university. Despite the posters on this site who have convinced themselves that anyone who doesn't have an Ivy League degree is hopelessly handicapped professionally, the only data cited here shows that Ivy League graduates have an initial advantage in salary directly out of school (which could be explained by where they go to work -- Recent graduates in the Northeast make more because the cost of living is higher), but that advantage dissipates quickly. Long term success is based upon the ability and drive of the students. My purely anecdotal experience in the corporate world is that Ivy League grads are often (not always) handicapped by their degrees. I've seen quite a few show up and expect to be handed the keys to the C suite within the year. The state school grads know they have to prove themselves, no matter how smart they are. I went to graduate school at a well-regarded state university that has been referenced in this thread, and all that the Ivy League graduates that I started work with had that I didn't was a lot of debt. Decades later, we are all still comparable in terms of our levels of professional success. On the other hand, if your child wants to be an academic, the Ivy League degree may matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on your financial circumstances. No way in hell would I want my kid to turn down Columbia or Stanford to go to Alabama. If you are on welfare and really need the aid money, it might be worth considering, but otherwise, no way.

This is a ridiculous comment!

OP, it depends what your son is interested in. It depends what he wants to study.

Ivy League only matters in certain fields, like maybe law and/or investment banking and/or corporate management shmoozing jobs.

When it comes to engineering, computer science and a number of other areas, what matters is that the college have a solid program in that area, because people are going to hire based on skills, not prestige.

People on DCUM are too brand-obsessed when it comes to education. Look at skills: What skills does your son want to develop, and where can he learn/hone those skills and not be left with mountains of debt? People from prestigious universities will have trouble finding jobs if they don't have in-demand skills. period. And if your son graduates with lots of student debt, it's going to limit his choices, because it will be difficult for him to move to other locations and support himself because of the crippling student loan debt.

I also doubt the PP who says Ivy leagues give a lot of aid. No, they don't. They just encourage people to take out loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't think it is worth an extra 12k a year to send your kid to Harvard over Tulane? In this economy?? Do you not realize how many more job opportunities your child will have for the rest of his life with Harvard on his resume?

The job opportunities available to OP's child will have more to do with what he studies and what skills he acquires, not the name of the university he attended.

When will people understand this? Especially going forward. With the crappy state of infrastructure, the scarcity of resources, and our complete dependency on technology, skills related to engineering, technology, energy -- those will be the skills that ensure employment opportunities going forward.

If I were OP, I would encourage my son to be less fixated on name of institution and more interested in the programs offered at those institutions. There are plenty of schools that have good programs that aren't Ivy League schools. OP's son should apply to those places. He might be offered very good financial packages.

As for Alabama, again, don't focus on the name, focus on the programs. OP should be encouraging her son to research what majors they offer and how strong those programs are.

After all, when looking at higher education, it is the *education* part that matters, not the name brand.