Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Well so long as you can guarantee that your kid will ALWAYS be evaluated by THE BEST HIRING MANAGERS, no worries, go ahead and send him to Arizona State.

One of the most successful people I know in NYC got his BA from...Arizona State.

Anonymous wrote:Name of the college helps you get into the first job out of college. After that, it's meaningess.

Save for those people who have nothing but that college name to bandy around....

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:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Sure. That talented kid with from South West Mississippi Tech absolutely has the same shot at a management track job as a Harvard grad

Oh get off your elitist high horse. Graduates from a non-selective state regional school are almost never going to be in the running for the same jobs as Harvard grads and no one ever said that hiring managers don't even consider the school of an applicant. These replies are in response to the poster who said that the hiring managers for the most coveted jobs in the country are going to rely primarily on what they think they know about a school an applicant went to, and that anything about an individual applicant as a person (achievements, interview responses, etc.) will account for very little, if anything. We all know that's complete BS. The big tech firms, for example, want TALENT and they take, for example, plenty of grads from Arizona State - the same school that the poster disparaged and said that hiring managers pass over for any and all grads from the very highly ranked schools. And sure, these firms probably take more grads from Stanford, etc. because those schools are heavily loaded with talent.

This response is complete BS. The big tech firms take TALENT primarily from exactly the schools you would expect - Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, CMU, Georgia Tech, etc.

I don't believe for a minute you sent your kid to some sh!t-tier school because MANAGERS RECOGNIZE TALENT and don't care about school pedigree.

I think we agree more than you think. Yes, the big tech firms take a lot of grads from Stanford, MIT, etc. because those schools are loaded with talent, significantly more so than at lower ranked schools. And I NEVER said that hiring managers don't consider the school of applicants -- of course they do, and going to a T20 can give one a big leg up. But the point is that those grads are NOT being hired just because they went to Berkley, they still have to prove themselves. Hiring managers consider a lot of factors and don't give offers to T20 graduates over star students at other schools just because of school pedigree. And if school brand meant almost everything for new grads, then why are so many Arizona State grads represented in big tech?

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/top-10-universities-that-produce-the-most-staff-for-global-tech-firms/#:~:text=Arizona%20State%20University%E2%80%93Tempe%20%288%2C320%20employees%29%20Carnegie%20Mellon%20University,Angeles%20%287%2C829%20employees%29%20University%20of%20Illinois%E2%80%93Urbana-Champaign%20%287%2C671%20employees%29

On the other hand, they are more likely to be given a chance to prove themselves. Kids graduating from random 4th tier directional universities are less likely to get that chance

Agree 100%, although Arizona State and the like aren't 4th tier directional universities. I also agree that whatever cut-off hiring managers are observing for GPA, etc. will be more much more "generous" for a new Stanford grad than a new Arizona State grad (i.e., a 3.8 GPA from Stanford will be viewed more favorably than a 3.8 at Arizona State).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

Most of the parents who wish for the “European” system don’t realize that, if their kid doesn’t qualify for generous merit aid in the US, they wouldn’t even be on the college track in most “European” countries.

Yes---Europe begins "tracking students" into 3 or 4 tracks around the Middle school level. If you don't make the cut at age 10/11, your kid simply will not be an engineer/STEM, as they won't have the background courses to succeed at that or even get a slot in a university. I'd prefer that my kids have the option to select what they want to major in/study for a career themselves when they are 18-20, not at age 10

In the US, kids are tracked from birth. If your kid doesn't have parents who can afford college, then they either gets decades of debt or no college

Side effects of your family economic status is everywhere. That's not what I was pointing out.

However, in the USA, your kid is not put on a College STEM track, College Humanities, no college at age 10. Even a kid who does NOT take calculus in HS (which is on grade level to end with Pre-calc) can still go onto college and be an engineer. Even a poor student can do this. In Europe (and much of asia) kids are set on their track at age 10/11.

The cost of college is very different. And kids can attend college without much debt. Do a CC for first 2 years while living at home, even better, do running start in HS (if you can manage it) and get an AA for free when you graduate HS.
That CC can be funded with a part time job (around me it $5K/year for CC plus books and min wage is $15, so very easy to earn $5K+).
Then transfer to 4 year university for the last 2-2.5 years of your degree. All in is $25K/year. Kid can earn $10-15K easily each year and if they were smart, they saved some during the 2 years of CC. Take loans for rest and you only have ~$25K in debt. If parents contribute even $4-5K/year you minimize debt more.

So yes, your kid may not go to a T20 school, but there are ways to get a degree without major debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Sure. That talented kid with from South West Mississippi Tech absolutely has the same shot at a management track job as a Harvard grad

LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Sure. That talented kid with from South West Mississippi Tech absolutely has the same shot at a management track job as a Harvard grad

Oh get off your elitist high horse. Graduates from a non-selective state regional school are almost never going to be in the running for the same jobs as Harvard grads and no one ever said that hiring managers don't even consider the school of an applicant. These replies are in response to the poster who said that the hiring managers for the most coveted jobs in the country are going to rely primarily on what they think they know about a school an applicant went to, and that anything about an individual applicant as a person (achievements, interview responses, etc.) will account for very little, if anything. We all know that's complete BS. The big tech firms, for example, want TALENT and they take, for example, plenty of grads from Arizona State - the same school that the poster disparaged and said that hiring managers pass over for any and all grads from the very highly ranked schools. And sure, these firms probably take more grads from Stanford, etc. because those schools are heavily loaded with talent.

This response is complete BS. The big tech firms take TALENT primarily from exactly the schools you would expect - Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, CMU, Georgia Tech, etc.

I don't believe for a minute you sent your kid to some sh!t-tier school because MANAGERS RECOGNIZE TALENT and don't care about school pedigree.

I think we agree more than you think. Yes, the big tech firms take a lot of grads from Stanford, MIT, etc. because those schools are loaded with talent, significantly more so than at lower ranked schools. And I NEVER said that hiring managers don't consider the school of applicants -- of course they do, and going to a T20 can give one a big leg up. But the point is that those grads are NOT being hired just because they went to Berkley, they still have to prove themselves. Hiring managers consider a lot of factors and don't give offers to T20 graduates over star students at other schools just because of school pedigree. And if school brand meant almost everything for new grads, then why are so many Arizona State grads represented in big tech?

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/top-10-universities-that-produce-the-most-staff-for-global-tech-firms/#:~:text=Arizona%20State%20University%E2%80%93Tempe%20%288%2C320%20employees%29%20Carnegie%20Mellon%20University,Angeles%20%287%2C829%20employees%29%20University%20of%20Illinois%E2%80%93Urbana-Champaign%20%287%2C671%20employees%29

On the other hand, they are more likely to be given a chance to prove themselves. Kids graduating from random 4th tier directional universities are less likely to get that chance

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

Most of the parents who wish for the “European” system don’t realize that, if their kid doesn’t qualify for generous merit aid in the US, they wouldn’t even be on the college track in most “European” countries.

Yes---Europe begins "tracking students" into 3 or 4 tracks around the Middle school level. If you don't make the cut at age 10/11, your kid simply will not be an engineer/STEM, as they won't have the background courses to succeed at that or even get a slot in a university. I'd prefer that my kids have the option to select what they want to major in/study for a career themselves when they are 18-20, not at age 10

In the US, kids are tracked from birth. If your kid doesn't have parents who can afford college, then they either gets decades of debt or no college

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Sure. That talented kid with from South West Mississippi Tech absolutely has the same shot at a management track job as a Harvard grad

Oh get off your elitist high horse. Graduates from a non-selective state regional school are almost never going to be in the running for the same jobs as Harvard grads and no one ever said that hiring managers don't even consider the school of an applicant. These replies are in response to the poster who said that the hiring managers for the most coveted jobs in the country are going to rely primarily on what they think they know about a school an applicant went to, and that anything about an individual applicant as a person (achievements, interview responses, etc.) will account for very little, if anything. We all know that's complete BS. The big tech firms, for example, want TALENT and they take, for example, plenty of grads from Arizona State - the same school that the poster disparaged and said that hiring managers pass over for any and all grads from the very highly ranked schools. And sure, these firms probably take more grads from Stanford, etc. because those schools are heavily loaded with talent.

This response is complete BS. The big tech firms take TALENT primarily from exactly the schools you would expect - Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, CMU, Georgia Tech, etc.

I don't believe for a minute you sent your kid to some sh!t-tier school because MANAGERS RECOGNIZE TALENT and don't care about school pedigree.

I think we agree more than you think. Yes, the big tech firms take a lot of grads from Stanford, MIT, etc. because those schools are loaded with talent, significantly more so than at lower ranked schools. And I NEVER said that hiring managers don't consider the school of applicants -- of course they do, and going to a T20 can give one a big leg up. But the point is that those grads are NOT being hired just because they went to Berkley, they still have to prove themselves. Hiring managers consider a lot of factors and don't give offers to T20 graduates over star students at other schools just because of school pedigree. And if school brand meant almost everything for new grads, then why are so many Arizona State grads represented in big tech?

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/top-10-universities-that-produce-the-most-staff-for-global-tech-firms/#:~:text=Arizona%20State%20University%E2%80%93Tempe%20%288%2C320%20employees%29%20Carnegie%20Mellon%20University,Angeles%20%287%2C829%20employees%29%20University%20of%20Illinois%E2%80%93Urbana-Champaign%20%287%2C671%20employees%29

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

Prestige does matter. It helps you. Probably helps more when you're just starting out, but it still helps. The question is whether that prestige is worth paying for.

But to return to the point, not all "lesser" SLACs are the same. If you had to put them in tiers based on selectivity, what tier of school is "desperate" now as the PP said?

I would look at the NACAC list of colleges still accepting applications. This is not to say that these schools are "desperate," but it could give you some options that might offer tuition breaks.

https://www.nacacnet.org/news--publications/Research/openings/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enrollment isn't down in the selective colleges, say T100-150.

However, there are hundreds of local and regional schools that are hemmoraging students. It will be a serious issue as these things ebb and flow, and having an educated populace is critical for an operational democracy.

This is what the GOP wants. Uneducated, dumb populace that lacks critical thinking skills. Not how some of the most repugnant politicans went to Ivy League schools. This is all a game to them.

No. I think people are realizing what a scam it can be in some situations. I think we have allowed higher ed to sell something people don't need in every situation. You don't need college to be a administrative assistant. Just look at how expensive it is to hire truly qualified trades people to work on your house. They have an advantage because so few people go into the trade

We need more vocational schools.

Yet I would not hire an administrative assitant without a 4 year college degree. Needed for the job at a law firm. Maybe not at a paper supply company but probably needed there too.

Why is this “needed”?

It's not needed but it's the only way to filter for a basic level of conscientiousness and literacy so it is what it is.

GSS suggests that the average IQ of a recipient of a Bachelor's degree is 100.4 for graduates in the 2010s, so it may be worth broadening your set of filters.

I’m surprised people think this way still. A bachelor’s degree is hardly a bright line test of intelligence. What about service in the Navy or something like that? The systems these kids operate are on par with the most sophisticated mechanical systems out there.

College as it has been pushed the last 20 years is a scam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

Most of the parents who wish for the “European” system don’t realize that, if their kid doesn’t qualify for generous merit aid in the US, they wouldn’t even be on the college track in most “European” countries.

Yes---Europe begins "tracking students" into 3 or 4 tracks around the Middle school level. If you don't make the cut at age 10/11, your kid simply will not be an engineer/STEM, as they won't have the background courses to succeed at that or even get a slot in a university. I'd prefer that my kids have the option to select what they want to major in/study for a career themselves when they are 18-20, not at age 10

Be nice everyone. This thread is getting very far removed from my original question as to whether “chances” will be better this year. Please be respectful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Sure. That talented kid with from South West Mississippi Tech absolutely has the same shot at a management track job as a Harvard grad

Oh get off your elitist high horse. Graduates from a non-selective state regional school are almost never going to be in the running for the same jobs as Harvard grads and no one ever said that hiring managers don't even consider the school of an applicant. These replies are in response to the poster who said that the hiring managers for the most coveted jobs in the country are going to rely primarily on what they think they know about a school an applicant went to, and that anything about an individual applicant as a person (achievements, interview responses, etc.) will account for very little, if anything. We all know that's complete BS. The big tech firms, for example, want TALENT and they take, for example, plenty of grads from Arizona State - the same school that the poster disparaged and said that hiring managers pass over for any and all grads from the very highly ranked schools. And sure, these firms probably take more grads from Stanford, etc. because those schools are heavily loaded with talent.

This response is complete BS. The big tech firms take TALENT primarily from exactly the schools you would expect - Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, CMU, Georgia Tech, etc.

I don't believe for a minute you sent your kid to some sh!t-tier school because MANAGERS RECOGNIZE TALENT and don't care about school pedigree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Sure. That talented kid with from South West Mississippi Tech absolutely has the same shot at a management track job as a Harvard grad

Oh get off your elitist high horse. Graduates from a non-selective state regional school are almost never going to be in the running for the same jobs as Harvard grads and no one ever said that hiring managers don't even consider the school of an applicant. These replies are in response to the poster who said that the hiring managers for the most coveted jobs in the country are going to rely primarily on what they think they know about a school an applicant went to, and that anything about an individual applicant as a person (achievements, interview responses, etc.) will account for very little, if anything. We all know that's complete BS. The big tech firms, for example, want TALENT and they take, for example, plenty of grads from Arizona State - the same school that the poster disparaged and said that hiring managers pass over for any and all grads from the very highly ranked schools. And sure, these firms probably take more grads from Stanford, etc. because those schools are heavily loaded with talent.