Can someone explain the lure of selective colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State land-grant grad here. It never occurred to me to apply to HYP types, nor have any of my kids shown any interest. Is this a class divide? Regional? (I grew up in the Midwest) Is it a financial thing, where making the highest salary possible is the goal? I know this is a stupid question, but I enjoy learning what makes people tick, and this baffles me.

People want to climb a rung on the American Caste system. It's not really that hard.

But it IS hard for many people in the country to understand why working yourself to death to make $300k per year makes sense, when they have pretty much everything they ever wanted on an income of $100k per year.

They just don’t get why it’s better to have 30 pairs of shoes than 10 pairs. Or why a $5k watch is better than a $200 watch. Or why a degree from Yale is worth all the fuss when Iowa State is just fine and a lot more fun.

Such a strange way of thinking. I know plenty of kids at state schools who have eyes on Wall Street, tech, etc. and are aiming for something well north of $100k (honestly, well north of $300k too).

I guess you are also lumping UCs, Michigan, etc. into your definition of Selective Colleges?

I’m not lumping anything together. There are people who can’t get enough money everywhere & people who think more isn’t necessarily better everywhere.

But I’d agree with the OP’s suspicion that there are geographical trends, most starkly Midwest vs Northeast.

It’s “strange” to you that some people might not fall for the “more is better” approach? That they are content with 10 pairs of shoes and a $200 watch? I can see it being “unusual,” but strange?


The OP gets why people want to go to college & have nice things. The main thrust of his various questions seems to be why they keep churning well past the point where the the diminishing returns principle kicks in.

He’s asking this in the context of elite colleges—why the overkill on institutional excellence? Why do some people think their 18 year old needs Nobel laureates to teach him in undergrad econ classes? Not such a strange question; in my lifetime I’ve heard people question wretched excess in other contexts: why does Sinatra have to keep singing or why did Willie Mays keep playing? Why do Biden & Pelosi keep shuffling along? Whether it’s money or fame or power or college prestige, the OP is wondering what’s going on in people’s heads that they can’t be content with what they have, when what they have is way more than adequate?

You can work any number of trades and make $100k. So why go to college at all? Go to CC and become an electrician or plumber for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State land-grant grad here. It never occurred to me to apply to HYP types, nor have any of my kids shown any interest. Is this a class divide? Regional? (I grew up in the Midwest) Is it a financial thing, where making the highest salary possible is the goal? I know this is a stupid question, but I enjoy learning what makes people tick, and this baffles me.

People want to climb a rung on the American Caste system. It's not really that hard.

But it IS hard for many people in the country to understand why working yourself to death to make $300k per year makes sense, when they have pretty much everything they ever wanted on an income of $100k per year.

They just don’t get why it’s better to have 30 pairs of shoes than 10 pairs. Or why a $5k watch is better than a $200 watch. Or why a degree from Yale is worth all the fuss when Iowa State is just fine and a lot more fun.

Such a strange way of thinking. I know plenty of kids at state schools who have eyes on Wall Street, tech, etc. and are aiming for something well north of $100k (honestly, well north of $300k too).

I guess you are also lumping UCs, Michigan, etc. into your definition of Selective Colleges?

I’m not lumping anything together. There are people who can’t get enough money everywhere & people who think more isn’t necessarily better everywhere.

But I’d agree with the OP’s suspicion that there are geographical trends, most starkly Midwest vs Northeast.

It’s “strange” to you that some people might not fall for the “more is better” approach? That they are content with 10 pairs of shoes and a $200 watch? I can see it being “unusual,” but strange?


The OP gets why people want to go to college & have nice things. The main thrust of his various questions seems to be why they keep churning well past the point where the the diminishing returns principle kicks in.

He’s asking this in the context of elite colleges—why the overkill on institutional excellence? Why do some people think their 18 year old needs Nobel laureates to teach him in undergrad econ classes? Not such a strange question; in my lifetime I’ve heard people question wretched excess in other contexts: why does Sinatra have to keep singing or why did Willie Mays keep playing? Why do Biden & Pelosi keep shuffling along? Whether it’s money or fame or power or college prestige, the OP is wondering what’s going on in people’s heads that they can’t be content with what they have, when what they have is way more than adequate?

You can work any number of trades and make $100k. So why go to college at all? Go to CC and become an electrician or plumber for that matter.

That’s a noble choice for someone who wants to be an electrician or a plumber. What about someone who wants to design bridges or perform surgeries? When did it become so socially unacceptable for Americans to be interested in anything that requires education beyond high school that isn’t investment banking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get to be around rich people. I went to a selective college as a middle class kid. I got a good education, but I could have gotten that at my state school. The biggest thing I got was marrying into money.

Is this that attractive, though? We're not wealthy ($250k HHI), but upper middle class is good enough to let us do the things we want. Are there that many people honestly wanting more? Seems stressful.

You’re showing your Midwest roots. Most on this board do not regard 250k as UMC, at all.

What you think doesn't matter.

It does actually. All our opinions count. Mostly bc you’re too gosh darn Midwest naive to figure out the merits of an elite education. Bless you.

Please tell the IRS how $250K is struggling, okay?

The IRS is irrelevant. You would not be able to cash flow 85k per year for any of the elite colleges. That is a fact. You’re not UMC in DC you’re MC.

Literally not how that works.

Not a response. Are you saying a family can cash flow $85k/year on $250k income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To compete with the best & brightest & most highly motivated.

To get a shot at the best jobs & internships.

Prestige.

Money.

Exposure to a more diverse group of peers.

To broaden one's knowledge & experience beyond that available at the in-state flagship.

To expand one's thinking & appreciation of differences.

No. Just the prestige. You can get there rest at a hundred other colleges too.

Ignorance is bliss.

Not PP but it is just prestige. The highly qualified students that don't get in due to numbers go other places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To compete with the best & brightest & most highly motivated.

To get a shot at the best jobs & internships.

Prestige.

Money.

Exposure to a more diverse group of peers.

To broaden one's knowledge & experience beyond that available at the in-state flagship.

To expand one's thinking & appreciation of differences.

No. Just the prestige. You can get there rest at a hundred other colleges too.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State land-grant grad here. It never occurred to me to apply to HYP types, nor have any of my kids shown any interest. Is this a class divide? Regional? (I grew up in the Midwest) Is it a financial thing, where making the highest salary possible is the goal? I know this is a stupid question, but I enjoy learning what makes people tick, and this baffles me.

People want to climb a rung on the American Caste system. It's not really that hard.

But it IS hard for many people in the country to understand why working yourself to death to make $300k per year makes sense, when they have pretty much everything they ever wanted on an income of $100k per year.

They just don’t get why it’s better to have 30 pairs of shoes than 10 pairs. Or why a $5k watch is better than a $200 watch. Or why a degree from Yale is worth all the fuss when Iowa State is just fine and a lot more fun.

Such a strange way of thinking. I know plenty of kids at state schools who have eyes on Wall Street, tech, etc. and are aiming for something well north of $100k (honestly, well north of $300k too).

I guess you are also lumping UCs, Michigan, etc. into your definition of Selective Colleges?

I’m not lumping anything together. There are people who can’t get enough money everywhere & people who think more isn’t necessarily better everywhere.

But I’d agree with the OP’s suspicion that there are geographical trends, most starkly Midwest vs Northeast.

It’s “strange” to you that some people might not fall for the “more is better” approach? That they are content with 10 pairs of shoes and a $200 watch? I can see it being “unusual,” but strange?


The OP gets why people want to go to college & have nice things. The main thrust of his various questions seems to be why they keep churning well past the point where the the diminishing returns principle kicks in.

He’s asking this in the context of elite colleges—why the overkill on institutional excellence? Why do some people think their 18 year old needs Nobel laureates to teach him in undergrad econ classes? Not such a strange question; in my lifetime I’ve heard people question wretched excess in other contexts: why does Sinatra have to keep singing or why did Willie Mays keep playing? Why do Biden & Pelosi keep shuffling along? Whether it’s money or fame or power or college prestige, the OP is wondering what’s going on in people’s heads that they can’t be content with what they have, when what they have is way more than adequate?

You can work any number of trades and make $100k. So why go to college at all? Go to CC and become an electrician or plumber for that matter.

Would it be ok with you if someone who wanted to be a school teacher went to college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State land-grant grad here. It never occurred to me to apply to HYP types, nor have any of my kids shown any interest. Is this a class divide? Regional? (I grew up in the Midwest) Is it a financial thing, where making the highest salary possible is the goal? I know this is a stupid question, but I enjoy learning what makes people tick, and this baffles me.

People want to climb a rung on the American Caste system. It's not really that hard.

But it IS hard for many people in the country to understand why working yourself to death to make $300k per year makes sense, when they have pretty much everything they ever wanted on an income of $100k per year.

They just don’t get why it’s better to have 30 pairs of shoes than 10 pairs. Or why a $5k watch is better than a $200 watch. Or why a degree from Yale is worth all the fuss when Iowa State is just fine and a lot more fun.

Such a strange way of thinking. I know plenty of kids at state schools who have eyes on Wall Street, tech, etc. and are aiming for something well north of $100k (honestly, well north of $300k too).

I guess you are also lumping UCs, Michigan, etc. into your definition of Selective Colleges?

I’m not lumping anything together. There are people who can’t get enough money everywhere & people who think more isn’t necessarily better everywhere.

But I’d agree with the OP’s suspicion that there are geographical trends, most starkly Midwest vs Northeast.

It’s “strange” to you that some people might not fall for the “more is better” approach? That they are content with 10 pairs of shoes and a $200 watch? I can see it being “unusual,” but strange?


The OP gets why people want to go to college & have nice things. The main thrust of his various questions seems to be why they keep churning well past the point where the the diminishing returns principle kicks in.

He’s asking this in the context of elite colleges—why the overkill on institutional excellence? Why do some people think their 18 year old needs Nobel laureates to teach him in undergrad econ classes? Not such a strange question; in my lifetime I’ve heard people question wretched excess in other contexts: why does Sinatra have to keep singing or why did Willie Mays keep playing? Why do Biden & Pelosi keep shuffling along? Whether it’s money or fame or power or college prestige, the OP is wondering what’s going on in people’s heads that they can’t be content with what they have, when what they have is way more than adequate?

You can work any number of trades and make $100k. So why go to college at all? Go to CC and become an electrician or plumber for that matter.

Would it be ok with you if someone who wanted to be a school teacher went to college?

Not at all…I also don’t think it is a problem if you want to earn $300k or $500k or $10MM.

My comment was in response to PP that says people should be fine going to a state school and earning $100k. It was all about ROI. I was just pointing out there are even better ROI options if that is the only criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:State land-grant grad here. It never occurred to me to apply to HYP types, nor have any of my kids shown any interest. Is this a class divide? Regional? (I grew up in the Midwest) Is it a financial thing, where making the highest salary possible is the goal? I know this is a stupid question, but I enjoy learning what makes people tick, and this baffles me.

I also grew up in the midwest. Ignorance is bliss. The reason the rich stay rich is they know how to play the game. Others have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State land-grant grad here. It never occurred to me to apply to HYP types, nor have any of my kids shown any interest. Is this a class divide? Regional? (I grew up in the Midwest) Is it a financial thing, where making the highest salary possible is the goal? I know this is a stupid question, but I enjoy learning what makes people tick, and this baffles me.

I also grew up in the midwest. Ignorance is bliss. The reason the rich stay rich is they know how to play the game. Others have no idea.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you can study with "the best and the brightest" at any top 50 schools or beyond. The only thing is prestige (most everyone knows Harvard). In terms of diversity, probably not true at HYP esp socioeconomic diversity. These schools continue to hugely favor the wealthy. In terms of making money in the future, that really is much more dependent on the student and his/her major.

I lost all respect for Harvard etc. since I learned that 50-70% (sometimes more) of the entering freshmen class consists of legacies, recruited athletes, URMs, donors, VIPs, celebrities' offsprings, Faculty & staff's children etc. etc. You no longer have the best and the brightest there.

Certainly there would be some stars and the average quality would be good but I would much choose a school that selects most (70-90%) of the students on merit basis.

Agreed. And they continue to refuse to stop accepting applicants based on legacy or athletic abilities.

Legacies and athletes are both smart, rich, and likely to get great jobs. Why would you not want them? 50 extra SAT points will not make up for that.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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 find that surprising given that most of these gave strong alumni support.

Which specific schools?

[Anonymous]

^given the