Slashdot Mirror


Is Going To an Elite College Worth the Cost?

Pickens writes "Jacques Steinberg writes in the NY Times that the sluggish economy and rising costs of college have only intensified questions about whether expensive, prestigious colleges make any difference. Researchers say that alumni of the most selective colleges earn, on average, 40 percent more a year than those who graduated from the least selective public universities, as calculated 10 years after they graduated from and found that 'attendance at an elite private college significantly increases the probability of attending graduate school, and more specifically graduate school at a major research university.' But other researchers say the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution may be more important, in the long run, than how prominently and proudly that institution's name is being displayed on the back windows of cars in the nation's wealthiest enclaves."

7 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Not for undergraduate by Aerorae · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At Duke I was pretty much told "Go buy the textbook [$200+] and come to class if you have questions [which probably won't be answered]." The profs were just that. Profs. Not teachers. They were more interested in their research than educating the lowly undergrads.

    I switched to a state school. I actually have TEACHERS now! (at 1/10th the price!)

    1. Re:Not for undergraduate by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They were more interested in their research than educating the lowly undergrads.

      If you go into academia and research, you need to be self-educating anyhow, needing to read esoteric and lingo-filled journals as part of your general career. This is why research institution "teachers" suck and can suck.

      It all depends on what your future focus is. A "practitioner" can generally do fine at a middle-level institution, and may even make it big via entrepreneurship etc. And save a lot of money to boot.

      However, if you want to move up in academic and research standing, you need to play the academia game, and the big-name universities control that game.

      The rift between the practitioner/entrepreneur route and the academia route tends to be growing such that you pretty much have to pick a side fairly early. Are you a "get it done" kind of person, or a intellectual thinker who prefers somebody else do the nuts and bolts of carrying something to production?
         

  2. How many are paying sticker by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article seems to assume that lots of folk attending elite schools are paying sticker for their education. From my understanding that's not the case.

    With the move to substantially increase tuition at all universities in England, there will be growing comparison against the sticker price at the top US schools. That, of course, is an unfair comparison as top US schools while undoubtedly expensive also have exceptional financial aid packages.

    While an in-state public university tuition will almost always be the most affordable, many will be able to attend top private schools for a similar amount. Very few will be paying the $45-50k talked about in the article.

  3. Quality of a child's peers by BeanThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, you build up a network of contacts in the world of the most successful people. But that is important. But interacting with successful people does more than just give you "contacts"; there is inherently automatically a "mentoring" effect.

    "But other researchers say the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution may be more important, in the long run"

    This is theoretically true at an individual level. If I think to my own days in a third-world mediocre public school and university, I would say I ultimately managed to get a good education 'in spite of' my school/university, not because of it --- but even so, I often performed very poorly (regretfully), and if I had to name THE single-biggest thing that negatively influenced my performance, I would have to say it was being surrounded by almost 100% uniformly poor-performing peers; they were stupid, they were lazy, they didn't care, learning was the least important thing imaginable, and stupidity and laziness was basically celebrated. When 99.9% of a child's peers are like that, as happened with me, it is almost impossible not to be negatively influenced and 'dragged down' to some degree.

    Now, many years later, I have a baby on the way, and have to start thinking about where to send her someday. And I definitely feel that if I can afford it, I want her in one of the top-notch universities. Why? Not because I'm expecting miracles from the professors or infrastructure, but because I know she is most likely to be surrounded by a comparatively higher percentage of peers who are amongst those in society with the highest focus and motivation on hard work and success.

    It is oddly seldom mentioned, but beyond parenting and teachers, I think the quality of peers that your child sits with must have a huge influence on their outcomes.

    The other reason is that I indeed want my children to mingle with society's successful people, not just to build contacts, but because there is an inherent mentoring effect. Even spending a day with someone highly successful at something can make a young persons entire career. The most successful people in finance and investing, tend to have had top-notch mentors, and you can mostly only find those people in the upper echelons.

    Like it or not, many of the most successful IT entrepreneurs etc. do come from backgrounds that allowed them to attend top-notch universities, and there are reasons for that.

    Can children be successful in cheaper schools, sure, of course, but suddenly when parenthood looms I just think I want the statistically best chance for my kids, so they can have opportunities I never had.

  4. Re:Contacts and relatioships generally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Harvard Longitudinal Study of Adult Development studied groups of men since the 1940s. The only correlation the study could find with anything was personal relationships.
    http://adultdev.bwh.harvard.edu/research-SAD.html

    Men with good relationships in childhood and young adulthood did better in almost every facet of their lives than did those with poor relationships: income, social status, marital status, health, etc. etc.

    There are also lots of studies that show that, once employees meet the minimum qualifications and are hired, their performance has nothing to do with where they graduated, their marks, their IQ or any additional degrees they have. The big thing is their interpersonal relationships.

    Of course, this is Slashdot, populated with geeks and nerds, so I don't expect that most of those reading this will believe it; sigh.

  5. Re:No by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    I did Applied Math (minor in Statistics) at Stanford and can say with absolute certainty that there's probably a 50-50 chance it could go either way.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Re:Only if by Dutchmang · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where are my mod points.... Right now even elite colleges are finding it hard to get all the full-tuition students they need. My daughter enrolled at a top school this year which gave us a no-strings-attached discount that dwarfed the cobbled-together combination of (grade-contingent) scholarships, loans, and grants that her other options offered. Now she's getting a household-name education, plus perks like great professors and a single room. Of course she's doing all the work and taking full advantage of everything on offer there. Now's the time to go a little contrarian in your educational choices.

    --
    I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!