Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story on NPR tonight on this very issue, though targetted at low-income kids. But Caroline Hoxby at Stanford noted that by not choosing an elite school, her research estimates that one would be giving up about $500k in the course of a lifetime. Something to think about though I know others disagree.

Of course that's coming from someone at Stanford. Expensive school graduates and the schools need to justify the expense. It's like saying that a BMW is intrinsically better than a honda when both will get you to the same place.

That is a great analogy! An expensive private school is a BMW and a solid state school is a Honda. Most of us drive Hondas because we don't need all the impressive bells and whistles. You will still get to your destination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This is debatable. Anyone who has been in the workforce for many years will tell you that it is your performance that counts most, not the school name on your resume. Maybe the initial opportunities straight out of undergrad are different at Harvard vs. Tulane, but again, that is making a lot of assumptions. Too many variables are at play, and sometimes it's even easier to stand out as a big fish in a small pond.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the value of a name brand degree. I went to an Ivy for my MBA and the average starting salaries coming out were much higher than lower tier schools. I made back my tuition in a few years. I have no doubt it has returned many times over at this point.

Apparently, even with your name brand degree, you don't seem to understand that it has to do with the field/degree. MBAs and law degrees are one thing, as employers in those fields do tend to care about status/networking/brand. But in other fields, like engineering, technology, IT, it really doesn't matter as much; it's more about demonstrable skills, hands-on experience, et cetera.

Well I was responding as "anyone who has been in the workforce for many years". The post didn't specify that it only applied to technical jobs. In my field there is no question that the brand name degree carries weight.

I wonder how much of the dissension on this board is due to regional and class differences. It's my impression that in the Midwest, out west, etc, people don't care nearly as much about what college you went to. But In certain areas of the country, like dc, it matters a lot.

PP, not entirely true though the bigger advantage is for lower-income first generation kids. There seem to be lots of people who (1) want to justify their choices to opt for a lower priced school or (2) are just angry/jealous at the higher priced elite schools. One can do fine at many institutions, but on average, elite schools pay off across the board, not always, not for everyone but on average.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story on NPR tonight on this very issue, though targetted at low-income kids. But Caroline Hoxby at Stanford noted that by not choosing an elite school, her research estimates that one would be giving up about $500k in the course of a lifetime. Something to think about though I know others disagree.

The research says exactly this: that attending an elite school conveys significant advantage over the course of one's lifetime only for low-income students, non-white students, and students who are the first in their families to go to college. That's why the story focused on low-income kids. For white students of middle class and up, researchers have found no significant difference in earnings between those who attend "elite" colleges and those who applied to elite colleges but attended non-elite colleges.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting story on NPR tonight on this very issue, though targetted at low-income kids. But Caroline Hoxby at Stanford noted that by not choosing an elite school, her research estimates that one would be giving up about $500k in the course of a lifetime. Something to think about though I know others disagree.

Of course that's coming from someone at Stanford. Expensive school graduates and the schools need to justify the expense. It's like saying that a BMW is intrinsically better than a honda when both will get you to the same place.

Interesting story on NPR tonight on this very issue, though targetted at low-income kids. But Caroline Hoxby at Stanford noted that by not choosing an elite school, her research estimates that one would be giving up about $500k in the course of a lifetime. Something to think about though I know others disagree.

Anonymous wrote:Really depends on your family finances. We're budgeting to pay 250k for our daughters education. I want her to pick the school that is best for her without any financial considerations. If we had two kids? Probably whole different calculation.

We have four kids. We'd have to budget $1M to pay for our children's college alone. No, we're middle class and can't do it.

It's crazee the cost of college these days! These are for-profit institutions allowed to have tax-free status. Have you looked around at the new building in your communities? Where I live and work the vast majority of new construction is at colleges and universities! They have so much money, pay no taxes, offer little in the way of financial aid, and keep growing, growing, growing because nowadays, everyone has to go to college!

My middle class parents paid my way to an Ivy League school many years ago. Now that's impossible, completely out of reach for a middle class family. The Ivies are for the very rich and very poor, but few in between. So like our society these days! The gap widens.

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, pp. why are yours summing second tier will give more money? The schools that have more money are Princeton, Harvard etc.

Yes, they have more money, but they aren't giving it to us. We're the middle class who've been saving for years, and therefore don't qualify for need-based aid. Harvard won't give us aid, even though there's not a chance we could afford to pay the $60K annual cost of sending our child to Harvard. The only way we could do that would be to completely gut our retirement savings, leaving us with no possibility of rebuilding our savings because we are too old.

Our children (and we have four) will look for scholarships, attend lesser schools that offer them money to lure them to their schools. Likely our children are top-tier quality (or close to it), but we don't have the money required to send them to top tier schools.

Oh, and a free ride guarantees your child will be free of debt! I can't tell you how many young people I see burdened by college debt! It affects their life and career choices and is a real ball and chain they carry for a long, long time. Even if you pay the cost of a more expensive school, won't you be expecting more of your child because of the money you've spent?

I'm sending my kids to the least expensive college, not the most prestigious one, they get into. As long as they are happy, I'm happy, and they won't be happy lugging a huge pile of debt for the next 20 years or so after they graduate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS has super-high test scores, GPA, etc. Alabama will give free ride for 10 semesters including grad school, pay a stipend of $3,500 a year, etc.

Financially, it is a no-brainer.

But, it is Alabama. DS would be a better fit at Columbia, Rice, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.

Thoughts?

Take the free ride and save the money for grad school. Students who are qualified for the Ivy League do well, no matter what school they go to. It's the caliber of the student, not the caliber of the school.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2004/10/education-easterbrook

+1

If your child wants Alabama (and she applied, no?), let her try it out. I'm sure she'll do well and go on to success in grad school or whatever she wants to do. A friend sent her daughter to Ole Miss free of charge, and her daughter's doing extremely well. The family could pay for anywhere, but the free ride was too good to pass up. And her daughter's happy there. Isn't that what counts?

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could get my child to consider some southern schools like Vanderbilt or Emory. He's wrapping up the last few applications and absolutely refuses to go below the Mason-Dixon. It's his life and decision and, regardless, we will help with expenses no matter where he goes. It's the social and political southern air that turns him off. However, he will definitely succeed wherever he ends up. I just think that he's missing out on several fine southern schools.

PP here. I should say further below the M-D line than we already are in Maryland.

I wish I could get my child to consider some southern schools like Vanderbilt or Emory. He's wrapping up the last few applications and absolutely refuses to go below the Mason-Dixon. It's his life and decision and, regardless, we will help with expenses no matter where he goes. It's the social and political southern air that turns him off. However, he will definitely succeed wherever he ends up. I just think that he's missing out on several fine southern schools.

Anonymous wrote:DS has super-high test scores, GPA, etc. Alabama will give free ride for 10 semesters including grad school, pay a stipend of $3,500 a year, etc.

Financially, it is a no-brainer.

But, it is Alabama. DS would be a better fit at Columbia, Rice, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.

Thoughts?

Take the free ride and save the money for grad school. Students who are qualified for the Ivy League do well, no matter what school they go to. It's the caliber of the student, not the caliber of the school.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2004/10/education-easterbrook

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This is debatable. Anyone who has been in the workforce for many years will tell you that it is your performance that counts most, not the school name on your resume. Maybe the initial opportunities straight out of undergrad are different at Harvard vs. Tulane, but again, that is making a lot of assumptions. Too many variables are at play, and sometimes it's even easier to stand out as a big fish in a small pond.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the value of a name brand degree. I went to an Ivy for my MBA and the average starting salaries coming out were much higher than lower tier schools. I made back my tuition in a few years. I have no doubt it has returned many times over at this point.

Apparently, even with your name brand degree, you don't seem to understand that it has to do with the field/degree. MBAs and law degrees are one thing, as employers in those fields do tend to care about status/networking/brand. But in other fields, like engineering, technology, IT, it really doesn't matter as much; it's more about demonstrable skills, hands-on experience, et cetera.