| Not only is tuition high at elite privates, there are other expenses like bullhorns, lighter fluid, American flags, matches, picket sign materials, etc. |
Surprised by some of this. |
Haha!!! So true. You should watch Bill Maher’s bit on the college kid’s “woke starter kit.” |
+100. My kid has a few amazingly bright and dedicated public high school teachers and I am so grateful for them. It is a hard job and you can change the course of someone’s life. |
| Law/Business/Med School is the great cleanser. Who cares where you go undergrad? It's all how you do in professional school. |
Why is OP a gold digger? Did she say she was a bisexual 21 year old looking to marry one of these people? |
What is your job where you are making $350,000 to $400,000? |
|
According to this latest Chetty/Deming/Friedman study, it DOES matter where you go to college:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/07/24/1189443223/affirmative-action-for-rich-kids-its-more-than-just-legacy-admissions |
Not the poster you are questioning but I went to a commuter college. State school for grad school now run a nonprofit and make 350K base with 100K bonus potential and put away about 75K/yr into retirement with matching. I am very, very very lucky. |
I would agree that a better title for this thread would be “Where you go to college matters less than what you do when you get there” instead of not mattering at all. But I don’t think the above article is really about that. It’s about the very rich having an easier time getting in. There is one paragraph that talks about 12 schools being over-represented in certain high profile populations (eg, Supreme Court justices), but those are tiny groups. The largest of those groups is the Fortune 500 CEOs, where 90% didn’t go to one of the 12 for college. That’s actually higher than I for one would have guessed, so in some sense supports OP’s point. One problem with data on such small populations is the numbers can change quickly. My non-scientific impression is the trend over time is towards less over-representation by a small number of schools in most of the examples mentioned in the article (CEOs, congress members, Rhodes scholars…) This topic was studied more directly by Dale & Krueger, who concluded that things like high school stats and where one applies (as opposed to where admitted or enrolled) were better predictors of later income than selectivity of school attended. There were exceptions for different demographic groups (certain minorities and low income families) who benefited more than others by attending a highly selective college, which perhaps is part of the reason schools saw fit to more aggressively pursue them. |