Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

The vast majority of colleges and universities offer all of these things, and chemistry isn’t different at a 90K per year school vs a state school.

If chemistry is all the same then why do so many premeds try to game it by taking orgo over the summer at an easier college?

NP with indulgent digression here:

I went to a lower tier university in my home state; I also had a part-time sales job at a major department store nearby.

Over the summer, the CFO’s kid, who went to our nationally-respected state flagship, came to work there as well. He smugly declared that he was going to take a lit class over the summer at my lower tier university so he’d get an easy A to transfer. I was an English Lit major and asked who the prof was. I knew she was a tough grader as I’d put in a lot of effort for my A in her class.

He did not get an A. I’m not proud to say that I quietly enjoyed this outcome for him.

And then you had to go back to work. Nice win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

The vast majority of colleges and universities offer all of these things, and chemistry isn’t different at a 90K per year school vs a state school.

If chemistry is all the same then why do so many premeds try to game it by taking orgo over the summer at an easier college?

NP with indulgent digression here:

I went to a lower tier university in my home state; I also had a part-time sales job at a major department store nearby.

Over the summer, the CFO’s kid, who went to our nationally-respected state flagship, came to work there as well. He smugly declared that he was going to take a lit class over the summer at my lower tier university so he’d get an easy A to transfer. I was an English Lit major and asked who the prof was. I knew she was a tough grader as I’d put in a lot of effort for my A in her class.

He did not get an A. I’m not proud to say that I quietly enjoyed this outcome for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

The vast majority of colleges and universities offer all of these things, and chemistry isn’t different at a 90K per year school vs a state school.

If chemistry is all the same then why do so many premeds try to game it by taking orgo over the summer at an easier college?

NP with indulgent digression here:

I went to a lower tier university in my home state; I also had a part-time sales job at a major department store nearby.

Over the summer, the CFO’s kid, who went to our nationally-respected state flagship, came to work there as well. He smugly declared that he was going to take a lit class over the summer at my lower tier university so he’d get an easy A to transfer. I was an English Lit major and asked who the prof was. I knew she was a tough grader as I’d put in a lot of effort for my A in her class.

He did not get an A. I’m not proud to say that I quietly enjoyed this outcome for him.

Anonymous wrote:These posts are annoying and there is no satisfying anyone. For those that can afford it, they’ve deemed the $90k worth it for their reasons. For those that can’t or don’t have the option due to being denied, of course they’re going to dismiss the worth. Then add in all the different interpretations of a successful outcome, how can there possibly be a consensus.

Anonymous wrote:These posts are annoying and there is no satisfying anyone. For those that can afford it, they’ve deemed the $90k worth it for their reasons. For those that can’t or don’t have the option due to being denied, of course they’re going to dismiss the worth. Then add in all the different interpretations of a successful outcome, how can there possibly be a consensus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

The vast majority of colleges and universities offer all of these things, and chemistry isn’t different at a 90K per year school vs a state school.

If chemistry is all the same then why do so many premeds try to game it by taking orgo over the summer at an easier college?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not interested in judging how other people spend their money. Showing off wealth is a life style sure.

I am just really curious why college tuition keep increasing yoy, it is not even tied to any performance benchmark.

Sounds like you aren’t interested in looking further than your navel.

Are you really not aware of how these schools spend money and why tuition has gone up?
Low class ratios and nice facilities don’t grow on trees.
Also, much of the student experience is subjective. It isn’t just what you learn, but how you feel about the experience.
Also, remember most kids are not paying full freight. The rich are subsidizing the less-well-off.

Did you know that in a study participants were presented with two glasses of wine and told one is from a $100 bottle and one is from a $20 bottle (roughly), and they consistently rated the $100 wine much higher across every metric?

The trick? It’s the exact same wine.

LOL, nice try. That trick might work for wine, but it won’t work for something you have to live and breathe for 4 years.

Have someone look at a $650,000 old 1000 square foot house and then a $1.2 mil updated 2500 square foot house in the same area. But switch the price tags and try to trick them!
Do you really think that someone will believe that the fake “$1.2 mil” 1000 square foot house is “better” than the updated 2500 square foot house because it has a higher price tag?

I get your point, since I have a relative who refuses to buy store-brand foods because she believes them inferior. But hardly comparable to the bigger ticket items and experiences in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

The vast majority of colleges and universities offer all of these things, and chemistry isn’t different at a 90K per year school vs a state school.

If chemistry is all the same then why do so many premeds try to game it by taking orgo over the summer at an easier college?

I have no idea!

Are you sure it’s because it’s easier, or is it so they can concentrate only on orgo for the summer while not juggling other classes?

Did they even attempt to take it at their fancy school? Did they flunk?

If it’s true that the $$$ colleges are just so much better, then it must also be true (based on this alleged gaming the system) that many of these vaunted peers you want your kids to be around can’t hack it and therefore don’t belong there…

It is true. Not actually a phenomenon from top schools though. For example, in my area with a flagship, kids say to take orgo elsewhere at regional campuses over summer. The med schools are cracking down though and do not like when applicants take classes elsewhere barring a good reason which there are some. They can see when the are trying to game it by outsourcing hard classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not interested in judging how other people spend their money. Showing off wealth is a life style sure.

I am just really curious why college tuition keep increasing yoy, it is not even tied to any performance benchmark.

Sounds like you aren’t interested in looking further than your navel.

Are you really not aware of how these schools spend money and why tuition has gone up?
Low class ratios and nice facilities don’t grow on trees.
Also, much of the student experience is subjective. It isn’t just what you learn, but how you feel about the experience.
Also, remember most kids are not paying full freight. The rich are subsidizing the less-well-off.

Did you know that in a study participants were presented with two glasses of wine and told one is from a $100 bottle and one is from a $20 bottle (roughly), and they consistently rated the $100 wine much higher across every metric?

The trick? It’s the exact same wine.

LOL, nice try. That trick might work for wine, but it won’t work for something you have to live and breathe for 4 years.

Have someone look at a $650,000 old 1000 square foot house and then a $1.2 mil updated 2500 square foot house in the same area. But switch the price tags and try to trick them!
Do you really think that someone will believe that the fake “$1.2 mil” 1000 square foot house is “better” than the updated 2500 square foot house because it has a higher price tag?

I get your point, since I have a relative who refuses to buy store-brand foods because she believes them inferior. But hardly comparable to the bigger ticket items and experiences in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not interested in judging how other people spend their money. Showing off wealth is a life style sure.

I am just really curious why college tuition keep increasing yoy, it is not even tied to any performance benchmark.

Sounds like you aren’t interested in looking further than your navel.

Are you really not aware of how these schools spend money and why tuition has gone up?
Low class ratios and nice facilities don’t grow on trees.
Also, much of the student experience is subjective. It isn’t just what you learn, but how you feel about the experience.
Also, remember most kids are not paying full freight. The rich are subsidizing the less-well-off.

Did you know that in a study participants were presented with two glasses of wine and told one is from a $100 bottle and one is from a $20 bottle (roughly), and they consistently rated the $100 wine much higher across every metric?

The trick? It’s the exact same wine.

participants are used to this day in and day out. even when buying salt at grocery store, branded vs. local store version, with both having exact same ingredients, but differ in price. participants are just demonstrating consistant consumer behavior. study proves nothing new.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not interested in judging how other people spend their money. Showing off wealth is a life style sure.

I am just really curious why college tuition keep increasing yoy, it is not even tied to any performance benchmark.

Sounds like you aren’t interested in looking further than your navel.

Are you really not aware of how these schools spend money and why tuition has gone up?
Low class ratios and nice facilities don’t grow on trees.
Also, much of the student experience is subjective. It isn’t just what you learn, but how you feel about the experience.
Also, remember most kids are not paying full freight. The rich are subsidizing the less-well-off.

Did you know that in a study participants were presented with two glasses of wine and told one is from a $100 bottle and one is from a $20 bottle (roughly), and they consistently rated the $100 wine much higher across every metric?

The trick? It’s the exact same wine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s also no way of knowing if a person who is “successful” (again by some subjective measure you decide is meritorious) can attribute that solely due to where they decided to attend college. There are too many complex interacting factors to determine this.

It’s not ethical to promote “exclusivity” by raising prices and selling the illusion that the investment guarantees better outcomes. Still haven't seen the rational explanation on why this price tag

Maybe because that price is what it takes to operate the college?

But they teach pretty much the same stuff since decades ago, no?

No, while sure there are subjects that still include material from decades, even centuries ago (would be stupid to teach philosophy w/o Plato etc.) that doesn't mean the curriculum doesn't and hasn't evolved. There are also the labs, libraries and facilities to maintain and grow as well as the campuses. Not to mention these schools financially support literally hundreds of student clubs and activities which are key to student life and making the college experience dynamic. Keep in mind, these are residential colleges, not commuter schools, the students truly live there and doing that well takes resources.

The vast majority of colleges and universities offer all of these things, and chemistry isn’t different at a 90K per year school vs a state school.

If chemistry is all the same then why do so many premeds try to game it by taking orgo over the summer at an easier college?

I have no idea!

Are you sure it’s because it’s easier, or is it so they can concentrate only on orgo for the summer while not juggling other classes?

Did they even attempt to take it at their fancy school? Did they flunk?

If it’s true that the $$$ colleges are just so much better, then it must also be true (based on this alleged gaming the system) that many of these vaunted peers you want your kids to be around can’t hack it and therefore don’t belong there…