Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

You seriously look at where someone attended undergrad when you are hiring Lawyers?!?!?

Some lawyers are elitist snobs that absolutely do look at undergrad - heck, they'd look at high schools if they could.

The people I know from law school who went to selective admissions high schools like TJ definitely got mileage out of that in law school interviews. People would ask where they grew up and if it was NYC/DC/places with “big name” high schools they’d ask.

Some lawyers are elitist snobs that absolutely do look at undergrad - heck, they'd look at high schools if they could.

I am 20+ years out of law school. A few years ago, I was sitting in a conference room with many similarly experienced/old lawyers. Each person introduced himself and included what law school he went to (and undergrad if it was prestigious) AND WHAT JOURNAL HE WAS ON IN LAW SCHOOL. This is a bunch of 40- and 50-year old attorneys still talking about having been on Harvard or Yale Law Review. In our rounds of attorney hiring over the past few years, the selected finalists all have been from elite schools (both undergrad and law school). Attorneys from ordinary schools who used to form the backbone of government practice now would not even be considered.

This is why kids apply to the same top 25 colleges. This is why kids are stressed out and anxious and feel like they have failed before they even turn 20. Go back and read the post by the miserable Columbia student who wanted to transfer, and all of the posters who told her to gut it out even though she felt suicidal and would incur debt, because "prestige." This is why there is so much student loan debt! This is why people have written books about "opportunity hoarding" and how assortative mating perpetuates economic inequality. It's not the same as buying BMW vs. Toyota, or whatever the comparison was, because because people truly believe that the name and rank of your college confers intellectual and moral superiority. This follows you your entire career, so much so that rich people are willing to commit crimes to get their kids that advantage. It is a crappy, morally objectionable reality that I wish did not exist, but it does.

And then people come on here and yell at OP because she is lamenting that her kid won't have those advantages. Privileged? Yes, incredibly so. But many of us feel the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Elite schools might give a slight advantage for someone's first job, but after that majority of employers care about your experience and references from your job.

Law might be slightly different, but I find it a bit odd that you care about undergrad rather than where the employee went to LAW SCHOOL. Harvard Law takes kids with a variety of undergrad experience---it is definately not limited to T20 schools/SLAC. Here's the list for this year's first year law students at Harvard: https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

I see a wide variety of schools represented, demonstrating that attending even a SUNY or Cal State U, Northridge can get you into Harvard Law.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be employed at a law firm that cares so much about status that does NOT matter---it matters where you went to Law School and what you did while attending law school.

I think the list of Harvard Law first year student's undergrad demonstrates really well that where you go does not matter that much. The avg SAT at Cal State U Northridge is 1030 and the WGPA is 3.3----not exactly above average stats, yet somehow someone (obviously smart) attended there (likely because that's what they could afford) and is now attending Harvard Law.

I would much rather hire someone who attends a school they can afford (even if they are "much smarter and could get into an elite school") and does great things while attending and is motivated to find a way to the nations top law school

I hate when people say this. My first job out of my Big 10 flagship paid $35k and was for a crappy local company. The experience I then had for my second job sucked and was hard to leverage into more money. While you’re right that experience is important, you don’t just make experience out of thin air.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

You seriously look at where someone attended undergrad when you are hiring Lawyers?!?!?

Some lawyers are elitist snobs that absolutely do look at undergrad - heck, they'd look at high schools if they could.

But I'm willing to bet the majority only look at Grad school/law school. Sure, there will be some places you will never work if you don't go Harvard onto Harvard Law, but that's less than 1% of jobs. And in reality, who wants to work somewhere that actually cares about where you attended HS/undergrad and your "pedigree"? It sounds miserable

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Seems like nearly everyone misses the primary differences between the "elite" schools and all the other schools. This is not a screed arguing in favor of an elite college, nor is it saying that kids cannot have good to great outcomes at T100 or T200, simply the real and tangible benefits of the T10 or T20:

1. The most important aspect of college is your kid creating their own personal network, not really anything they tangibly learn;
2. No surprise here, but the elite schools tend to attract wealthy and very wealthy domestic and international students, who many times are legacy...the average/median income of these students' families are much higher even if you adjust for school sizes;
3. If you look at the 100 richest people in this country, you will see an absolute skew of people that either matriculated (but dropped out) or graduated from Top 10 schools. Where do you think the children of Gates (Harvard), Bezos (Princeton), Zuckerberg (Harvard), Musk (Penn), Larry Page (Michigan and Stanford), Sergey Brin (UMD and Stanford), Steve Ballmer (Harvard), Michael Bloomberg (Hopkins), etc. are going to college...I purposely left out Larry Ellison because he funnily enough has the most refreshing view for his own kids (said why should they go college at all or at least pick a school that is fun because they will never want for anything in their life);
4. The alumni network of these schools is international and in every field and profession you can imagine...if a kid reaches out, most alumni are more than willing to have coffee and help out one of their own;
5. There are certain professions that are massively skewed to graduates of these top schools...venture capital, private equity, MBB...they do hire outside of this clique, but it is absolutely easier to get the interview and the job if you are in it.

Many may counter that you can live a great life and have a great career and never have gone to any of these schools. Absolutely correct. You will also probably have a friend or two (or three) that graduate Top10 and have crappy jobs and lives, and of course that happens quite a bit too. You can't just attend and expect these amazing things to fall in your lap.

However, there is no denying the massively skewed phenomenal outcomes that accrue to graduates of these schools. It is the collective network effect of the reputation, the already elevated wealth and connections of the student body, the alumni, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Come on, OP's choice isn't between Wellesley and NOVA. It's just not.

It depends on the kid, and it may be between Wellesley and Mary Washington or Townson. Anyone saying that hiring managers, especially for new graduates, don't care about the university name is lying.

University name matters only a little. Please show me a company where all new hires are hired is from a T20 university. I'll wait....

No one said T20- Wellesley isn't even T20. The discussion is affordable vs. unaffordable which is much broader than T20. Are we talking about all hiring or hiring with a potential for promotion? Mckinsey may hire a receptionist with a degree from Kutztown or SUNY Cortland, but they are not hiring associates from those schools.

Wellesley is consistently a T5 LAC. It's up there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

You seriously look at where someone attended undergrad when you are hiring Lawyers?!?!?

Some lawyers are elitist snobs that absolutely do look at undergrad - heck, they'd look at high schools if they could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Come on, OP's choice isn't between Wellesley and NOVA. It's just not.

It depends on the kid, and it may be between Wellesley and Mary Washington or Townson. Anyone saying that hiring managers, especially for new graduates, don't care about the university name is lying.

University name matters only a little. Please show me a company where all new hires are hired is from a T20 university. I'll wait....

No one said T20- Wellesley isn't even T20. The discussion is affordable vs. unaffordable which is much broader than T20. Are we talking about all hiring or hiring with a potential for promotion? Mckinsey may hire a receptionist with a degree from Kutztown or SUNY Cortland, but they are not hiring associates from those schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Come on, OP's choice isn't between Wellesley and NOVA. It's just not.

It depends on the kid, and it may be between Wellesley and Mary Washington or Townson. Anyone saying that hiring managers, especially for new graduates, don't care about the university name is lying.

University name matters only a little. Please show me a company where all new hires are hired is from a T20 university. I'll wait....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Come on, OP's choice isn't between Wellesley and NOVA. It's just not.

It depends on the kid, and it may be between Wellesley and Mary Washington or Townson. Anyone saying that hiring managers, especially for new graduates, don't care about the university name is lying.

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Come on, OP's choice isn't between Wellesley and NOVA. It's just not.

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

Elite schools might give a slight advantage for someone's first job, but after that majority of employers care about your experience and references from your job.

Law might be slightly different, but I find it a bit odd that you care about undergrad rather than where the employee went to LAW SCHOOL. Harvard Law takes kids with a variety of undergrad experience---it is definately not limited to T20 schools/SLAC. Here's the list for this year's first year law students at Harvard: https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

I see a wide variety of schools represented, demonstrating that attending even a SUNY or Cal State U, Northridge can get you into Harvard Law.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be employed at a law firm that cares so much about status that does NOT matter---it matters where you went to Law School and what you did while attending law school.

I think the list of Harvard Law first year student's undergrad demonstrates really well that where you go does not matter that much. The avg SAT at Cal State U Northridge is 1030 and the WGPA is 3.3----not exactly above average stats, yet somehow someone (obviously smart) attended there (likely because that's what they could afford) and is now attending Harvard Law.

I would much rather hire someone who attends a school they can afford (even if they are "much smarter and could get into an elite school") and does great things while attending and is motivated to find a way to the nations top law school

Anonymous wrote:

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.

You seriously look at where someone attended undergrad when you are hiring Lawyers?!?!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering why tuition has gone up so much--it's not just climbing walls and administrative creep (although that doesn't hurt. Here are some of the things schools must now provide that cost a lot of money:
1) Mental health services
2) ADA and accommodation services (extra test time et al)
3) FERPA/HIIPA administrators
4)DEI deans, programs, counselors, et al
5) Improved housing and dining

I'm not saying that these changes are bad--it's great that kids with mental health issues, disabilities, needing accommodations can now go to school, and DEI is important. But if you think about how it was when the boomers went to school -- some large lectures and bare bones housing, no counseling at all -- and what it is like today at schools, you see why it costs so much more.

“Rich kids are more expensive to educate because they’re more likely to be disabled and mentally ill” is not a take I expected to encounter on DCUM, but here we are.

P: Not sure why you jumped to rich kids. This is happening at most higher ed institutions, no matter who they primarily serve, rich, poor, URM, etc. As the OP stated, administrative creep is one reason and it seems like the lack of transparency in the market, as well as student loans/financial aid, has contributed to the problem, but so has the items on OP's list: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-college-so-expensive-2018-4

The schools that enroll a lot of rich kids cost a lot more than the schools that enroll a lot of middle class kids. You said the reason the price was so high was that the kids need more disability and mental health services. The only way that can explain the high marginal cost of Ivies over the cost of going OOS to a school like Florida, UGA, OSU, UIUC, or Purdue, is if the rich kids are more likely to need those services.

The elite schools have always cost more. They cost more because they have better facilities (sometimes), more research supported, smaller class sizes, more advisors and services for the students, etc. It costs much more to offer Chemistry 101 with only 50-100 students or less vs 500+ per class. My one kid has chemistry lab where there are no partners so each kid attends a lab of only 10-12 students and does lab solely by themselves, that means more space, time, equipment,TAs to run labs, etc. Similarly for other classes that are even smaller at most elite universities. They often require housing for 2 years and some for 3-4---this all costs money (whereas your big state schools sometimes do not even guaranteed housing for freshman). So they must have maintain more dorms, dining halls, etc. The more elite schools often have better RA to student ratio in dorms (or even just mid tiered private/more expensive schools)....my kids all had 1:25/30 RA ratios, but at the big state schools we looked at it would be 1:60/80 RA:student ratio. All of these little things cost more and add up.

The elite schools also cost more because they have the elite professors who they pay like football stars....these professor bring in research $$ and other grant.

N

The reality is that a wonderful college education is available in the United States at reasonable prices to most students, our university system is the envy of the world. Some of the options are very high cost, but not all.

NP. I agree, but here is my frustration: when you are on a hiring panel, will you fairly consider someone who spent the first two years at NOVA and then graduated from Mason because that was all she could afford without debt? Or will you pick the Harvard/Yale/Wellesley grad who had the option to go to Harvard/Yale/Wellesley without debt because her parents were high earners? Be honest. We all know how this goes. I practice law, and I absolutely know the real answer to this one.

That is why OP is upset.