Is Going To an Elite College Worth the Cost? 391
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."
Not for undergraduate (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!)
90% of everything is crap, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Or (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or (Score:5, Interesting)
absolutely - that 40% extra over the "lesser" colleges tend to be because the students tend to come from wealthier families anyway. I wonder what the spread of the increase is across all students? ie - is it that 10 of them become billionaires which brings that average up among all students there?
I question the validity of the study (Score:4, Interesting)
So they say that you earn more if you went to a highly selective school than a non-selective one. Ok, fine, but the problem is that it doesn't mean you earn more BECAUSE you went to that school. The thing is if the school is being highly selective, it is getting only the best and brightest students, not to mention motivated. Those people are likely to go on to better things because they are smart, motivated, and so on.
What you need to examine for something like this is how it compares between people that went to these schools and people that could have, but didn't. Those who had the grades and test scores, maybe even applied, but elected to go to a state school instead. My bet? Not much difference.
In the job market you'll find that your university education matters little past your first job. It isn't 100% irrelevant or anything, but employers start to care a whole lot more about experience and references than they do about education. Where you went to school and what your GPA was will take a back seat to what you've done at work.
Then, of course, in terms of it being "worth it," you have to consider the costs. Suppose you can go to a public school on scholarship, and the course load will allow you to work to cover other expenses. You can come out with a 4 year degree and zero debt. Now suppose you go to Harvard and have to pay $50,000 a year in tuition, and have no time to work so you accrue $15,000 in other living costs. You get out and owe $260,000, presuming interest was handled during your time in school (with costs that high, probably not). You now have to pay that, and its interest down. So you HAVE to make a lot more to break even. The money you spend on repaying your outstanding loans is money a person who did not accrue them could put in savings or invest.
I certainly wouldn't tell people not to go to a top school, but I'd say do so only if you can afford it. If they give you a scholarship, or if your family has plenty of money to support you, then sure, go for it. Really can't hurt, though make sure you do research because some schools are better for one thing than others. MIT is famously bad for undergrads, good for grads. However trying to pay for the whole thing just because you managed to get in? Hmmm, I doubt that's very smart. You'd have to be assured a good bit more money, and that it would consistently stay higher, than if you didn't to make it worth it in the long run.
That has to be considered too (Score:5, Interesting)
Though there is a flipside to that: High end schools are often well connected themselves, as are their faculty, so going there can get you connections. Thing is that tends to be more true on a per-program basis. So in the event you have a field you really want to be in, particularly if it is something involving graduate work, then you need to look at what professors are good in that and choose the school accordingly. May turn out a "lesser" school in fact has a better, more connected, program in the area of your interest.
But yes, it is another problem with the study. If the people have the connections anyhow, and a job is "waiting for them" so to speak, then the school they go to is not all that relevant.
Re:cue the dropouts (Score:2, Interesting)
(warning: anecdotal evidence ahead)
Dunno... I recently had to sit in as technical on a metric ton of interviews for open IT positions here where I work. I turned down an IT ops management candidate who had a Masters' Degree in Comp Sci and 10 years of management experience, but never held down a management position at any one company for more than 3 years (the winning candidate had only a 4-yr EE degree, but nearly 20 years' experience managing at an F100 company).
I also talked them into throwing out resumes of college grads with little experience in favor of High School degree holders with more (and demonstrable) experience.
Long story short, a degree only tells me (and most folks I know in the field) one thing: The candidate can be dedicated towards a goal, and is willing to put up with some BS to get there. It's a differentiator, sure... but it's bupkis compared to practical, hands-on experience, and a candidate who rides on his or her sheepskin is less valuable than one who has none but shows initiative, curiosity, and drive.
Before you say it, you're talking to a former EE, and someone who has taught CompSci (and was licensed and affiliated w/ the state board of regents) at a college for six years.
We don't have this issue in Holland (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes if there are no jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
Who am I going to hire in a recession? A guy from Kansas State U or someone from M.I.T.? I would pick M.I.T. if both candidates were equally qualified. Experience counts more of course but the deal breaker would be the school.
The debt ... well the guy from Kansas Sate working at Target will make more than you. 50% of yoru income will just go to payback loan and you will need a 2nd job to survive and eat due to the outrageous cost. But in 5 years when you are a manager you can then start to make up the difference. In 30 years when you are getting ready for retirement you will see the difference in your bank account. It just wont show for awhile due to the high outragous costs.
Now if you do not find an I.T. job then you are wasting money. Some of you just wont work in I.T. Indians do these jobs now mostly and it is very competitive. Cross your fingers and take risks appropriately. Also do not bring in more than 100k in debt. Keep that as the limit.
Depends on the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course nowadays students at Cambridge will be looking at £9,000/year tuition fees with lower fees of £3-6,000/year elsewhere thanks to the UK government's appalling mismanagement of education. With fees like that I would have had to think long and hard before going. Partly because of the cost but also partly because selecting student's based on parental income rather than academic ability will mean lowering the education standards and a worsening of the student experience as the fraction of those of us who went through the state school system is reduced.
Is going to a University at all worth the cost? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is going to a University at all worth the cost?
I was a computer geek from elementary school and knew where my career was heading. After an addiction to Ultima Online that resulted in too many absences I was given a choice of retaking a whole 6-month semester of high-school and being separated from my peers or dropping out of school. After a few months lounging around and playing the game some more I went to work in a large computer chain doing desktop and printer repairs, then worked as a junior server & desktop admin at an account firm trying to become a Dot-com, then started as a Wintel Server Admin (Systems Analyst) in a major Wall Street investment bank, and after 9/11 I worked for most of Wall Street firms as a contractor doing essentially the same thing making well over 6-figures.
When the last economic slump hit even New York I took a position last year to move to Houston Texas to work for a major health care/hospital organization and I've been working as a Senior Windows Server Admin. I'm much happier now in this new city and the quality of life here is much better than what I had in NYC, even though I took a 20% pay cut but still remained in the 6-figure range with a higher or equal pay rate than some who have gone to universities.
That's my story and I sometimes wonder how it would have turned out if I did go to a university? Would I have been working at a more difficult and prestigious job than a server admin making more money? Would I be happier? Or would I have turned out like some of my friends who went to college and came back no smarter or more educated but with a large financial debt making half as much money as I am?
Re:Not for undergraduate (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
it's merely the effect of expectations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:90% of everything is crap, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I've found complete idiots at some top schools, but I've also found smart people
I guess these two groups are the ones that benefit the most from an elite college.
If you're the dumb kid of a wealthy family, the elite college will help you to get a job that requires that you are looking good in a suit and have a prestigious degree.
If you're smart, the elite school will have the resources you need and after college you will more easily be given the opportunity to prove yourself.
Re:Contacts and relatioships generally (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 [harvard.edu]
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.
What if a prestigious school harms you? (Score:4, Interesting)
What if you go to some famous school, but all the good jobs are reserved for the "insiders" who have been going there for generations? Outside of this crowd, other employers may feel intimidated by your background and not want to hire you. Not all employers want a super-smart employee. Or if they do hire you, they may set you up for failure, because the boss wants to laugh about firing someone who went to a prestigious school.
I went to a prestigious school, where everything people said had many layers of meaning, and everything was an advanced mind game. It took me a long time to trust simpler people who really mean what they say; people couldn't understand why I was so "paranoid". Well, I was in an environment where you had to be.
Re:Yes if there are no jobs (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't quite mesh with the statistics I've heard. I've always heard that in a recession, the person with the lower education (assuming they're still qualified) is likely to get hired, because they're the one who is less likely to jump ship as soon as a better job comes around. It's the basic problem of being overqualified during a recession that a lot of people are facing.
depends upon field and career, of course (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many factors at work here. The various studies all have flaws as there are many interrelated variables and they are difficult to separate out. There is a complex choice here, and it is never as simple as these studies or stories make it out to be. Some things that are typically omitted:
1) If your undergraduate degree is the last degree you are going to get, the importance of that institution is elevated somewhat.
2) If you plan to get an advanced degree, one main goal of undergraduate education is to increase the likeliehood that you will get into a top graduate program and do well there.
2b) Top graduate programs in science and engineering are much more likely to take strong students from research universities, particularly those undergraduates who already took some graduate-level courses or had specific productive experience with undergraduate research.
Expounding a bit:
1) For careers in finance or management, many strong firms only consider students from very strong universities. If that is your career path, that could be an important criterion. Similarly, if your only degree will be undergraduate in some other field where generally the expectation is just an undergraduate degree, that choice of institution of course matters more. In terms of studies that look at average salary, this effect can dominate others as these are often high-paying fields with great variance in salary.
2) In general, I recommend that good students go to the "best" place that they get into. That is, the most academically rigorous usually works well. Overdoing it can be a problem, if they go to a place where the expectations are simply to high and they struggle and fail. But most commonly, the advantage of going to a strong place is that the other students are also strong, and the professors can then teach at a reasonable level for their audience. That is, often the other students are the limiting factor to the depth of a course's coverage and so you want to be at the best place you can be and still succeed. That is a good route to the preparation needed for doctoral-level courses.
2b) I've had to serve on various doctoral admissions committees, and students from big research universities are much more known quantities. Professors at these institutions have more experience with students continuing on to graduate school (and seeing their own students and other graduate students in their departments) and the students have a pretty good idea of what they are getting into. There have been too many students from small liberal arts colleges, whose letters of recommendation said "this is the best student I've seen in years" who took all the available courses there and excelled grade-wise, but who struggled and turned out to be poorly prepared or just overwhelmed by doctoral level work, or simply didn't really realize what they were getting into. So occassionally there are students from such backgrounds who do OK, but it isn't common and I can't recommend it as a good route to a strong graduate program. It may be the case that their smaller college instructors there are more involved in their teaching, classes are smaller, facilities are better, and they may in fact actually learn more at their institution and be happier there, but that doesn't really carry much weight for eventual graduate study.
FWIW, I went to an elite US research university for my undergraduate, and went to a top US research university for my PhD. I have taught or held research appointments post-Ph.D. in a wide range of institutions, from one of the weaker Ivy League institutions to top tier public research universities to mid-tier public research universities and I have a strong record of research funding as a professor judged primarily on research. People from many backgrounds ask for my advice about university choices in science and engineering as there is a culture of excessive obsession about "the right institution" for their choice.
Re:Only if (Score:4, Interesting)
And the "best" schools aren't necessarily the most expensive schools. That is another important distinction to make.
Quite true. In fact, Ivy League schools can be nearly free if you're not rich and are willing to negotiate with the financial aid office.
Calculate the costs (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, you're going to be racking up the student loans. The investment in a good school for just 4 years is 200-250k in tuition for the lowest ranked 'top universities', think more near to 1M if you want Harvard or others in the Ivy League. If you need to get housing, it's an additional 50-100k+ for on-campus housing or if you can find something among the locals 25k+. You'll be making 18k/year at the local McD to cover your food and fuel expenses during this period. You'll have lots of stress trying to balance it all. In the mean time you're 'investment' is going to accrue interest at ~2% a year (or roughly $5-20k/year).
Then you're going to have to find an entry-level job, before you even make enough money to start paying off the balance (not the interest) you're another 5 years further. That's 9-10 years of your life you're under water (debt wise) in which you won't even be able to save enough to do anything.
If you go to a local community college you'll get the same paper, less debt and you'll have less stress. You'll be able to buy a house after 2 years working and you're debt should be paid off ~2-3 years after that. Plus, you won't be too highly qualified (or feel underpaid) for that job.
And that's if you're lucky and get that job in the industry. A bunch of college kids feel inadequately educated and end up working at the local pizza shop anyway. I was able to work in the IT industry right out of high school (albeit at a lower entry-level income) and have been able to work up to mid-level in the time it would've taken me to finish a University education. I now have over a decade of experience in the industry which makes me a good candidate for just about any job I interview for. I can afford a house, cars, a family and have absolutely no debt.
Re:Depends on the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea because the amount you pay back for your tuition fee loan is based on your parents income.
Yes it is. Those with rich parents will not NEED a tuition fee loan because their parents will pay their tuition for them. Those of use whose parents could not have afforded to do that will get stuck with the bill.
In fact with the new 9k fees it is cheaper to go to places like Canada for a degree - even paying the increased foreign student rate and even with the suppressed value of the pound. Of course there are the cost of flights but the lower cost of living and accommodation probably recoups most of that....and if the pound ever regains some of its lost value on the international exchanges it will become quite a bit cheaper.
Of course you could argue that people should pay for the education they get but in the past that was always counted as part of the higher tax rates that those with greater incomes paid. This also evened out some of the inequities in that teachers get lower salaries than doctors and yet both are just as essential. By charging the same for everyone you will end up with more lawyers, doctors and business-types and fewer teachers, scientists and engineers because the former have higher salaries and can easily afford to pay back the loans. This sort of change is not good for society.