Undergrad doesn’t matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

False. The difference between top private law schools and state programs has become negligible. UVA law is now $105,335 instate and is $108,348 OOS. UCLA law is $98,696 instate and $119,000 OOS. Berkeley Law is $100,000 instate and $112,000 OOS.

Can you source those numbers? They don’t appear to be within a country mile of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

False. The difference between top private law schools and state programs has become negligible. UVA law is now $105,335 instate and is $108,348 OOS. UCLA law is $98,696 instate and $119,000 OOS. Berkeley Law is $100,000 instate and $112,000 OOS.

Can you source those numbers? They don’t appear to be within a country mile of reality.

Not PP, but it’s right on their website: https://www.law.virginia.edu/financialaid/annual-cost-attendance-budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

DP. From the perspective of a professor who has taught at a T70ish public and an ivy that is just outside the T10, there is a large significant difference in the pace of the classes, the amount of reading required each week and the research-based writing required. The faculty talent based on education was not too different, though the resources of the ivy did pull in huge talent in other areas. The student differences were unbelievable. Yes, very bright students existed at the state school, but they were a significant minority and could not be pushed to the same level as they would have been at the ivy. The average student would not have been able to keep up; admin actively encouraged making sure coursework was designed around the average student. Anyone who thinks students with an average SAT of 1300 can be pushed to the same degree and have the same success as students with an average of 1500+ has never taught both groups at a college level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

Who knows. I am sure some people mean it in a snobbish way, hoping for the rubbing elbows with rich, which is ridiculous. More uber-rich parents we know send their kids to SMU, Baylor, W&L than the ivies: the latter is much more likely to have students on need-based aid.
There are other families that focus on the fit of peers on an intellectual level, particularly students who have been "outliers" in their schooling, never challenged because they were the smartest kid in every class. Those kids often benefit from a large majority cohort of similar intellect. Some will still be at the top, but at least they will be more challenged. Unfortunately, the kid who is used to being the smartest in high school and never challenged can end up with significant self esteem issues once surrounded by a majority that is similar: they cannot deal with being average. It is hard to know where each kid fits best. Reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell talk on having students be at the top: some students thrive best there. But there is a point where you can be so far above 95% of peers that it does not make sense to go to a college that replicates that high school situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

Uh it’s 147 schools for a class of 500+.

Uh we don’t know how many kids came from each school

In my experience it was one. And the current stats show that to be true. HLS publishes its class GPA spread: 25th percentile: 3.84/4.0. 50th percentile: 3.93/4.0. 75th percentile: 3.99/4.0.Jan 2, 2024.

In order to get that 3.99 HLS IS taking the valedictorian of the 147 SLACs.

Fair point. The ones 3.85 and below may be all from H and other ivies where that is basically average

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

Who knows. I am sure some people mean it in a snobbish way, hoping for the rubbing elbows with rich, which is ridiculous. More uber-rich parents we know send their kids to SMU, Baylor, W&L than the ivies: the latter is much more likely to have students on need-based aid.
There are other families that focus on the fit of peers on an intellectual level, particularly students who have been "outliers" in their schooling, never challenged because they were the smartest kid in every class. Those kids often benefit from a large majority cohort of similar intellect. Some will still be at the top, but at least they will be more challenged. Unfortunately, the kid who is used to being the smartest in high school and never challenged can end up with significant self esteem issues once surrounded by a majority that is similar: they cannot deal with being average. It is hard to know where each kid fits best. Reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell talk on having students be at the top: some students thrive best there. But there is a point where you can be so far above 95% of peers that it does not make sense to go to a college that replicates that high school situation.

What's "uber rich" and honestly how many do you know? Once more, the statistics don't bear this out in the slightest. The Ivy schools (+MIT, Stanford, Duke) have the highest concentration of top 1% and top 0.1% families attending than all other schools and nominally have more attending as well. Just look at who is actually known to be "uber" rich vs. all the people on DCUM who claim to know lots of uber-rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

I think its all of the things previously said, but also its so much more. Its not just about "getting hired by their friends's parents" - that's an extremely short duration view of the impact of a top tier private education. It extends long beyond graduation.

Example: I look at my network/friends from college (T10) and my husbands (T10) compared to my siblings networks (T100 - one public and one private) - its crazy how different they are. And how less helpful they are. This is a conversation beyond what happens "in college" where it might be marginally helpful. Its about how peers impact your life for the first several decades post-graduation. It might not be important to you? But it absolutely is beyond connections at graduation - its the network that lasts a lifetime (jobs, dating, more career advancement (e.g., career hopping), board seats, internships for your kids, private investment opportunities, socialization, travel opportunities etc). Its not for everyone though, and that's ok. Just what I personally have observed in my own experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

Who knows. I am sure some people mean it in a snobbish way, hoping for the rubbing elbows with rich, which is ridiculous. More uber-rich parents we know send their kids to SMU, Baylor, W&L than the ivies: the latter is much more likely to have students on need-based aid.
There are other families that focus on the fit of peers on an intellectual level, particularly students who have been "outliers" in their schooling, never challenged because they were the smartest kid in every class. Those kids often benefit from a large majority cohort of similar intellect. Some will still be at the top, but at least they will be more challenged. Unfortunately, the kid who is used to being the smartest in high school and never challenged can end up with significant self esteem issues once surrounded by a majority that is similar: they cannot deal with being average. It is hard to know where each kid fits best. Reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell talk on having students be at the top: some students thrive best there. But there is a point where you can be so far above 95% of peers that it does not make sense to go to a college that replicates that high school situation.

What's "uber rich" and honestly how many do you know? Once more, the statistics don't bear this out in the slightest. The Ivy schools (+MIT, Stanford, Duke) have the highest concentration of top 1% and top 0.1% families attending than all other schools and nominally have more attending as well. Just look at who is actually known to be "uber" rich vs. all the people on DCUM who claim to know lots of uber-rich people.

Uber rich = private school parents who are fully pay with 2nd and 3rd homes. I know a lot of them.
And SMU, Tulane, Baylor are known as the dumb kid party schools and we know A LOT of people in various circles who send their kids there (SMU = "snowy mountain uni")....
Ask your kids.
Other schools to add to that list = Pepperdine; LMU; Wake (to a lesser extent now bc kids need to apply by end of Aug to get preferred treatment); U-Miami (early strategy)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

Who knows. I am sure some people mean it in a snobbish way, hoping for the rubbing elbows with rich, which is ridiculous. More uber-rich parents we know send their kids to SMU, Baylor, W&L than the ivies: the latter is much more likely to have students on need-based aid.
There are other families that focus on the fit of peers on an intellectual level, particularly students who have been "outliers" in their schooling, never challenged because they were the smartest kid in every class. Those kids often benefit from a large majority cohort of similar intellect. Some will still be at the top, but at least they will be more challenged. Unfortunately, the kid who is used to being the smartest in high school and never challenged can end up with significant self esteem issues once surrounded by a majority that is similar: they cannot deal with being average. It is hard to know where each kid fits best. Reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell talk on having students be at the top: some students thrive best there. But there is a point where you can be so far above 95% of peers that it does not make sense to go to a college that replicates that high school situation.

What's "uber rich" and honestly how many do you know? Once more, the statistics don't bear this out in the slightest. The Ivy schools (+MIT, Stanford, Duke) have the highest concentration of top 1% and top 0.1% families attending than all other schools and nominally have more attending as well. Just look at who is actually known to be "uber" rich vs. all the people on DCUM who claim to know lots of uber-rich people.

Uber rich = private school parents who are fully pay with 2nd and 3rd homes. I know a lot of them.
And SMU, Tulane, Baylor are known as the dumb kid party schools and we know A LOT of people in various circles who send their kids there (SMU = "snowy mountain uni")....
Ask your kids.
Other schools to add to that list = Pepperdine; LMU; Wake (to a lesser extent now bc kids need to apply by end of Aug to get preferred treatment); U-Miami (early strategy)

Sidwell has exactly one kid going to SMU and none to Baylor or W&L. They do have a ton going to Ivy schools however.

That’s not Uber rich either…Uber rich starts at $100MM+ at least. It’s the children of Gates (Stanford), Bezos (Princeton, MIT)…heck even Jerry Seinfeld’s kids (he is near $1BN) went to Duke.

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t matter for what?

I never understand the need of “doesn’t-matter” people lecturing others. If it truly doesn’t matter, please leave out your undergrad in your applications for jobs/schools, tinder profile …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A spinoff of sorts from the chasing merit thread.

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Look at all the schools that are represented in Harvard’s L1 class for 23-24.

You don’t need a highly ranked school to get into an excellent grad program. This isn’t 80% of the class from T50’s. These schools are all over the board in ranking.

You clearly didn't go there or you would know what is wrong with your post. There are only 147 undergrad institutions given there. The entering class of Harvard Law is 560. The remaining 413 come predominantly from only from the Ivies + Stanford with Harvard undergrads making up about 30% of the entire class (in my year). So if you really want to go there you go to Harvard undergrad, then Yale, Stanford, etc. The leftover 147 are the valedictorians or token reps to fill in the rest of the class.

Point taken about the class size. But the point still stands (from the misconception on the other thread) that almost all of the class is not from top schools.

And this 147 you speak of - you know it’s only 1 person from each of these schools?

Yes, I was one of them. Like you, from an unimpressive SLAC, but no 1 in my class, Rhodes, 4.0, high LSAT, etc.

So wait - your rational is because you are the only one that came from your specific school, this must be the case for every other school on the list? You can’t be serious.

That was certainly the case when I attended HLS. 560 in a class. Most from Harvard and Ivy and Stanford undergrad. And yes 140 or so valedictorians from SLACs. I was certainly the only one from mine. My SLAC sent someone to HLS only once every ten years or so. Maybe 15.

DP. My T10 send many to HLS, and many to similar law schools. The bottom of the T14 is considered “mid” from this university. It is just how it is, a pipeline. Undergrad matters.

This is a weird WSJ listing, but here are the Top 20 private undergraduate schools and public undergraduate schools that produce law schools grads with the highest median lawyer incomes.

In theory, this reflects both the numbers of kids from these schools attending law school (and likely top law schools) and the jobs they receive after law school.

For private colleges, only Brigham Young is an outlier...the remainder are all the top undergraduate colleges.

Folks...everyone who claims an undergraduate degree doesn't matter...please, find something empirical to back it up. The problem is it seems impossible. Even if you look at the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, yes like 80% didn't go to a top 10 school (though like 50% did attend a Top 100)...however, statistically, that still means like 10 schools account for 20% of all Fortune 500 CEOs...which implies that it is a massive benefit to attend one of those Top 10 schools.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?mod=ig_collegepay

Those 20% of Fortune 500 CEOS that attended a T10 school most likely came from wealthier backgrounds, so the real reason the "succeeded" has to do with their upbringing (they grew up with relatives who are executives and strivers), family money and connections and ability to financially take risks. Those same people were very likely to go on the same path no matter where they attended undergrad.

Also those who can afford to attend T10 undergrads are the ones who think "oh, I can afford $400K for law school" The MC/LC student with the same smarts who doesn't think of T10 because it's not affordable is not now thinking "oh, let's spend $400K on law school". They are going to the best state law school they can get into, and possibly living at home with parents while doing this to minimize debt. Doesn't make them any "less smart" Just means they have to worry about finances and that impacts many of their decisions

Once more…show me any empirical evidence to support this, not just your made up conjecture.

Literally, nothing you wrote above is supported by anything. You pulled it directly out of your a**.

False. The difference between top private law schools and state programs has become negligible. UVA law is now $105,335 instate and is $108,348 OOS. UCLA law is $98,696 instate and $119,000 OOS. Berkeley Law is $100,000 instate and $112,000 OOS.

Can you source those numbers? They don’t appear to be within a country mile of reality.

Not PP, but it’s right on their website: https://www.law.virginia.edu/financialaid/annual-cost-attendance-budget

Clarification. I’m referring to the UC figures. Also, when it comes to graduate school, including housing in the “cost of attendance” is deceptive. For many adjusted individuals, housing costs are taken on following undergraduate, which means those costs are part of one’s budget already. If you have to pay them one way or another, why include them in the calculus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

I think its all of the things previously said, but also its so much more. Its not just about "getting hired by their friends's parents" - that's an extremely short duration view of the impact of a top tier private education. It extends long beyond graduation.

Example: I look at my network/friends from college (T10) and my husbands (T10) compared to my siblings networks (T100 - one public and one private) - its crazy how different they are. And how less helpful they are. This is a conversation beyond what happens "in college" where it might be marginally helpful. Its about how peers impact your life for the first several decades post-graduation. It might not be important to you? But it absolutely is beyond connections at graduation - its the network that lasts a lifetime (jobs, dating, more career advancement (e.g., career hopping), board seats, internships for your kids, private investment opportunities, socialization, travel opportunities etc). Its not for everyone though, and that's ok. Just what I personally have observed in my own experience.

My husband and I went to top 10 undergrad and we do still keep in touch with classmates but that is the extent of it really. First few jobs and grad school have been much more influential on career success. As far as comparing to siblings "circles", I have one sibling who went to a large state school married to a successful entrepreneur without a college degree. She runs in much fancier circles than I do. Brother never finished college but is VP in sales at a friend's start-up. not "uber rich" but a few houses, boat, etc. I honestly feel like DH and I prefer to avoid our undergrad crowd because they tend to be snobs. Especially the ones who came from little- it is like they completely forgot where they came from and their spouses are insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Undergrad does matter even for law students. Just take a look at the majority of the Surpreme Court justices. Roberts and Jackson (Harvard/Harvard Law), Alito and Sotomayor (Princeton/Yale Law), Kagan (Princeton/Harvard Law), Gorsuch (Columbia/Harvard Law), Kavanaugh (Yale/Yale Law).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peers matter.

THIS.

This peers matter comment is the last defense for paying $90k for private vs a large public. See it all the time on these threads. Don't get it though. To me just reeks of white old man country club vibe. What do you mean Peers matter exactly? Are you saying that you won't find motivated kids at a large public school? I have 2 kids- one motivated and one not so much. They will both have grades to get into decent colleges. They will both seek out their motivated and slacker peers when they get to college.
Or are you saying that you only want your kids to go to a private college with rich kids so they have more opportunities to for connections to get hired by their friends' parents?

please explain.

I think its all of the things previously said, but also its so much more. Its not just about "getting hired by their friends's parents" - that's an extremely short duration view of the impact of a top tier private education. It extends long beyond graduation.

Example: I look at my network/friends from college (T10) and my husbands (T10) compared to my siblings networks (T100 - one public and one private) - its crazy how different they are. And how less helpful they are. This is a conversation beyond what happens "in college" where it might be marginally helpful. Its about how peers impact your life for the first several decades post-graduation. It might not be important to you? But it absolutely is beyond connections at graduation - its the network that lasts a lifetime (jobs, dating, more career advancement (e.g., career hopping), board seats, internships for your kids, private investment opportunities, socialization, travel opportunities etc). Its not for everyone though, and that's ok. Just what I personally have observed in my own experience.

My husband and I went to top 10 undergrad and we do still keep in touch with classmates but that is the extent of it really. First few jobs and grad school have been much more influential on career success. As far as comparing to siblings "circles", I have one sibling who went to a large state school married to a successful entrepreneur without a college degree. She runs in much fancier circles than I do. Brother never finished college but is VP in sales at a friend's start-up. not "uber rich" but a few houses, boat, etc. I honestly feel like DH and I prefer to avoid our undergrad crowd because they tend to be snobs. Especially the ones who came from little- it is like they completely forgot where they came from and their spouses are insufferable.

You can’t win this game when the most successful people on the planet either graduated from or dropped out of top 10 schools. Larry Ellison is an outlier though he dropped out of UIUC which is top for CS.