Ivy League Colleges: For what purpose?

[Not not Mattaru]

The college/university school system is a joke. The whole thing is designed to drain as much money from your pockets as possible. Having a degree any more these days means nothing about your intellect, all it shows is that youre dedicated in wasting your time and money to obtain something.

As that chart shows, there are A LOT of bullshit classes, and it's rare for a uni to require students to take worthwhile non degree relevant classes like humanities.

I dont blame anyone who doesnt want to go to college, let alone an ivy league college, because it's all fucking bullshit. As others have said, college is for nothing but connections and getting your foot in the door, and to show your employeer you have dedication in finishing something you start while wading through bullshit.

But yes lol @ ivy school. Ill take my two degrees and various certs from my lolocal schools where I have 0 debt right out of school.

There is so much wrong with this post.

1. Yeah, having a college-educated workforce and the best university system in the world is a big joke. Totally useless. Sure schools look for a lot of money because of the growing competition in the university system, there are problems with this but it is not a reason to assume going to school is worthless.

2. Is it really rare? Most all schools require gen. ed. classes during your first 2 years. At least all the schools I ever looked at.

3. I don't blame anyone if they can get what they need some other way and enjoy doing it that way, but college is a viable option. I enjoyed it because I put a lot into it and I feel I got a great deal of learning out of it.

4. As has been said earlier going to an Ivy league school does not = being in massive debt.

[Zetanio]

I was looking for a picture as my response and a little digging I found it.

[img]ridiculously idiotic picture[/img]

It's wrong that going to a top school takes 17 years on average to dig out of because of how much more it costs even with your so-called 'better job/career'.

Why the fuck should anyone take the time and effort to do that I mean really.

I had a nice long point by point post on this but decided against posting it. If you can't see the flaws in your logic then that's your loss.

The college/university school system is a joke. The whole thing is designed to drain as much money from your pockets as possible. Having a degree any more these days means nothing about your intellect, all it shows is that youre dedicated in wasting your time and money to obtain something.

As that chart shows, there are A LOT of bullshit classes, and it's rare for a uni to require students to take worthwhile non degree relevant classes like humanities.

I dont blame anyone who doesnt want to go to college, let alone an ivy league college, because it's all fucking bullshit. As others have said, college is for nothing but connections and getting your foot in the door, and to show your employeer you have dedication in finishing something you start while wading through bullshit.

But yes lol @ ivy school. Ill take my two degrees and various certs from my lolocal schools where I have 0 debt right out of school.

If you waste your time in college getting a bullshit degree, then you have definitely wasted your money. The system is designed so you CAN get a great education in a very wide range of interests. I'll be honest, I would have loved to have had a golf class or a class on making maple syrup. God forbid there is a class that teaches you something you like.

Not going to college is a huge fucking mistake. Good luck making far less money then your peers. That doesn't apply for people that aren't cut out for it. (Read: Not smart enough or don't give a fuck enough)

I think we can agree this is a hater's wanna hate situation.

[Julian]

I like how the guy took time to find a picture response, but didn't take any time to read the thread. :D

[Acturus]

If you waste your time in college getting a bullshit degree, then you have definitely wasted your money. The system is designed so you CAN get a great education in a very wide range of interests. I'll be honest, I would have loved to have had a golf class or a class on making maple syrup. God forbid there is a class that teaches you something you like.

Not going to college is a huge fucking mistake. Good luck making far less money then your peers. That doesn't apply for people that aren't cut out for it. (Read: Not smart enough or don't give a fuck enough)

I think we can agree this is a hater's wanna hate situation.

I don't think there's agreeance on that at all. The usefulness of college in the US is inflated, and the cost-to-benefit ratio of a college education is really not all that great anymore.

The bachelor's degree is today what the high school diploma was thirty years ago. The MBA is the new liberal arts degree, and the market is saturated with college educated nobodies. Add in the poor job market, and the corrollary effect on student loan increases and returning to-/staying in college, and we're watering down the importance and usefulness of having a degree.

[Zetanio]

I don't think there's agreeance on that at all. The usefulness of college in the US is inflated, and the cost-to-benefit ratio of a college education is really not all that great anymore.

The bachelor's degree is today what the high school diploma was thirty years ago. The MBA is the new liberal arts degree, and the market is saturated with college educated nobodies. Add in the poor job market, and the corrollary effect on student loan increases and returning to-/staying in college, and we're watering down the importance and usefulness of having a degree.

My point was that if you DON'T go to college, you'll still end up making far less money in the long term. I agree that the system is too expensive for what you get in most cases. I also think too many people that are unqualified and unready are being accepted these days. That's another greed issue on the part of the schools.

The piss-poor job market these days isn't helping anyone. I had a conversation with my friends from high school the other night and we were talking about how the current graduating classes and past few as well, are starting up in the toughest job market in a long time. We are all fortunate enough to have made progress in starting our careers (For reference we are all 24/25) but there are more then a few very capable people we know/worked with that are effed because they have no connections to get even an entry-level or AA job.

Which leads right back around the circle to why people go to Ivy League schools (That's right, I fucking brought it back to the OP). In times like this, the only people who have a much better shot at getting jobs are people who went to a tier 1 or Ivy/Baby Ivy school. That's your networking/alumni card right there. I got my current job through an NYU alum and another family friend.

tl;dr College is expensive. Stupid people shouldn't go to college. Greed is good.

[Gredival]

A lot of copy pasta from another thread we had that devolved into this discussion.

If you know exactly what you want to do, the value of an Ivy is much lower. I myself am going to Law School this fall and my application was hurt by an average-ish GPA. That is because I went to a very competitive school. If I could go back I would definitely have taken my cheaper rides to UCLA or Cal, chose lots of easy classes instead of "academically challenge but rewarding" classes, and rode to a near 4.0 off the mediocrity of average classmates.

But there are many times where choosing on prestige makes sense.

Many people don't intend to do graduate school, so paying for a brand name diploma might be very important coming into the job market right after graduation. There are quite a few situations where you will find your school's general prestige more important than how respected your specific major department is. Specifically, if you're not trying to get into a job with enough specialization where employer knows the top-10 leading departments in their field, then "general school prestige" (lay prestige) becomes the default prejudgment criteria to evaluate you.

Talking with lots of employers I can tell you the feeling I get is that people only have the time to skim resumes... so your window of opportunity to impress and land the very first interview pretty much lies in your GPA, your school name, and any loaded history in previous work experience (i.e. summer associate for Goldman Sachs). The school's prestige is one of three things that can immediately speak to your level of qualification relative to other applicants. You can definitely stick out coming out of any school if you have say publications, a thesis, cum laude honors... but wherever you are relative to your class at a state school, it becomes doubly impressive at an Ivy. You are always going to be better off if you can name-drop an Ivy, or so some of nationally recognizable name (say, Notre Dame, despite the fact it's admissions statistics aren't that bad)

If you want to see how go meet some new people for two weeks. For one week tell them that next summer you are going to Harvard. The next week tell another group you are going to a local community college. Who was more impressed by you the first five minutes of conversation before even knowing you? You may think these are just average people and you don't need to impress them... but many employers ARE average people.

Additionally if you don't know what exactly you want to do going to a school like Harvard is a safe way to make sure doors are open to you after graduation. Sure it may not be the ideal path, but I can guarantee you that no door will be closed to you because you went to Harvard. When you don't know what you want to do in life that flexibility is more important than local Tijuana Tech's high placement in Engineering -- specialized reputation limits you and is therefore not of use unless you are 100% set on your life path. And the fact is that a huge number of people change majors in college (I want to say 50% but I have no idea if that's correct).

Better schools get more employers for OCI programs. This is essential to getting a high paying job if you are trying to break into a competitive market without any connections. As someone mentioned, some companies basically break down hiring by allocating a certain pool of job slots to certain schools while other job slots go to other schools. Guess where the highest paying first year associate positions go? HYPS.

Also Ivy professors tend to be some of the most well-known, and thus most well connected, people in their fields. That doesn't hurt when it comes to networking, or letters of rec.

Lastly, at least for undergraduate, Ivy Leagues are not expensive. Elite schools use 100% need blind admission and don't give out "merit-based scholarships" -- this basically means that they will use the standard formulas most schools use to figure out how much your parents are supposed to pay and how much loans to take out and everything after that is paid for by them in some way shape or form. You don't have to be super special to receive scholarships at Ivy's, if you get in they will do whatever it takes to make it affordable through scholarship. In my case I got over 70% of my yearly cost of attendance free just for remaining in academic good standing.

[Zetanio]

A lot of copy pasta from another thread we had that devolved into this discussion.

Long Post

He said what I wanted to say. Kinda. Great point.

[Ruiner]

The "it takes 17 years to make an Ivy League education worth it over a state school" statistic is pretty damn horribly skewed, so much so that I'd say it's flat out wrong. Not only does it not account for the mountains of financial aid Ivies give their students compared to these state schools, but also, it assumes that the two starting salaries will remain the same all of these 17 years, and not grow in any way. Someone with a degree from Yale is going to probably have a lot more ladder available for them to climb right from the start than someone from University of Connecticut.

[Byrthnoth]

The "it takes 17 years to make an Ivy League education worth it over a state school" statistic is pretty damn horribly skewed, so much so that I'd say it's flat out wrong. Not only does it not account for the mountains of financial aid Ivies give their students compared to these state schools, but also, it assumes that the two starting salaries will remain the same all of these 17 years, and not grow in any way. Someone with a degree from Yale is going to probably have a lot more ladder available for them to climb right from the start than someone from University of Connecticut.

I've heard about how much financial aid Ivys give their students, but I sure didn't see it. Had a friend get into Princeton for Crew though, plenty of financial support. I seem to recall he quit the team as soon as he got there and rode out his financial support getting a degree. Made me wish I had picked up an obscure sport that's prized by rich people as a child.

[Gredival]

Also, I'm curious: what do people consider "public Ivys" and "tier 1" schools? Off the top of my head, I would say MIT, Stanford, UVA, UNC, Georgetown, Duke, a few of the UCs, Chicago, Hopkins, etc. Probably missing a bunch. There really are a lot when you think about it.

I think there's a definitive distinction even within the Ivys... I mean Brown and Cornell and Penn are all great schools, but they definitely don't belong in the same breath as Harvard Yale and Princeton whereas MIT, Caltech, and Stanford would all qualify in my opinion.

These are the schools that immediately come to me as top of their "category" when I'm talking with talented students about top schools during application season.

"True Ivys" and True Ivy Peers: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Hopkins, UChicago, Columbia
Top Liberal Arts Colleges/Little Ivys: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona
Top State/Public Ivys: Umich, Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, UT Austin

But also keep in mind, prestige is largely a function of the average student at each of these schools. The top 1-5% students at nearly any school are usually peer level and probably chose their specific school based on other factors than prestige. A brilliant and driven student can succeed anywhere... succeeding at an Ivy is simply a matter of putting your success against presumably harsher competition which can be a positive factor later in life. That's not always an end all be all factor. In addition to the pink elephant of debt, there is definitely a different classroom and out of classroom experience between all three of those school types.

[Ruiner]

I've heard about how much financial aid Ivys give their students, but I sure didn't see it. Had a friend get into Princeton for Crew though, plenty of financial support. I seem to recall he quit the team as soon as he got there and rode out his financial support getting a degree. Made me wish I had picked up an obscure sport that's prized by rich people as a child.

Where aren't you seeing it? The only Ivy that wouldn't meet pretty much every student's demonstrated needs would probably be Cornell, but they're a special case for most things when considering the Ivies as a whole. This is because of, most notably, their larger undergraduate student body, smaller endowment comparatively, and their College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, which is part of the SUNY program.

Your friend certainly wasn't on an athletic scholarship, so I doubt he was getting much extra for crew. If he really did quit right away, and the aid they were giving him was based on his athletic prowess, don't you think they would have yanked it the next year?

[Byrthnoth]

Where aren't you seeing it? The only Ivy that wouldn't meet pretty much every student's demonstrated needs would probably be Cornell, but they're a special case for most things when considering the Ivies as a whole. This is because of, most notably, their larger undergraduate student body, smaller endowment comparatively, and their College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, which is part of the SUNY program.

Your friend certainly wasn't on an athletic scholarship, so I doubt he was getting much extra for crew. If he really did quit right away, and the aid they were giving him was based on his athletic prowess, don't you think they would have yanked it the next year?

Ivy League schools have an agreement that they will not give athletic scholarships. Thus, none of their scholarships can have athletic participation requirements. They still "value athletics in their applicants" and the coaches from various teams may contact you to gauge your interest in their sports, but they're not allowed to officially offer scholarships to someone "for athletics."

Still, I have one friend that went to Princeton (and happened to be an awesome fencer) and another friend that went there (and happened to be really good at crew). They were both above average academically, but it isn't like they were rocking all 5s on their APs and perfect SAT scores/GPAs. Both were contacted by the coaches before being offered financial assistance. You can read me their mission statement and official policies, but I'll believe experience.

Also, "demonstrated need" is a little bit of a deceptive term. My parents probably could have paid to put me through a 40k/year institution, but they'd already forewent over a decade of vacations and other niceties to send my sister and I to a private school (benefit unknown). Our newest car at the time was a 10 year old minivan we bought used. My dad was thrilled to get $2500 from the insurance company when I got t-boned in his daily driver (a Chevy older than me). I'm wasn't about to make them pay 20k/year for 10 more years with an uncertain payoff considering my desired career path.

PS. Not picking on Princeton in particular. I have some pretty highly unqualified soccer-playing friends at UPenn.

[Gredival]

Well that's also exactly why they have people who just bounce on the sports commitment because the money isn't officially tied. I have a buddy at Princeton who did that with swimming.

But the general perception is that at least at these schools the athletes aren't the kind going to a state school and barely making academic eligibility. Sure they aren't your normal Princeton kid, but they are at least halfway smart.

And yes, demonstrated need isn't a perfect formula. Especially with unorthodox families or for people with weird cost of living situations. But there are plenty of times where ridiculous endowments make it so that it's more sense financially to take an Ivy over a state school. The UC system is notorious for this given California's abysmal budget and the costs of an extra year or two.

[Darus Grey]

I think an even bigger rip-off is the "new-ivy" and other 2nd/3rd string private schools, you pay the same outrageous tuition but get none of the benefits, not nearly(if at all) the same level of name recognition, and not nearly the same networking opportunities; cause your only classmates are all the ones stupid enough to make the same mistake you did, lol.

I agree with the thread in general that pre-grad ivy is a waste, and even then post-grad is a waste.

It is VERY easy to transfer to an Ivy as a PHD student, they actively ENCOURAGE it, because they get to buff up their PHD graduation figures and only have to spend on you 1-2years(and they get the prestige claims to anything you ever do, despite little to no part in it).

[Ruiner]

Ivy League schools have an agreement that they will not give athletic scholarships. Thus, none of their scholarships can have athletic participation requirements. They still "value athletics in their applicants" and the coaches from various teams may contact you to gauge your interest in their sports, but they're not allowed to officially offer scholarships to someone "for athletics."

Still, I have one friend that went to Princeton (and happened to be an awesome fencer) and another friend that went there (and happened to be really good at crew). They were both above average academically, but it isn't like they were rocking all 5s on their APs and perfect SAT scores/GPAs. Both were contacted by the coaches before being offered financial assistance. You can read me their mission statement and official policies, but I'll believe experience.

Also, "demonstrated need" is a little bit of a deceptive term. My parents probably could have paid to put me through a 40k/year institution, but they'd already forewent over a decade of vacations and other niceties to send my sister and I to a private school (benefit unknown). Our newest car at the time was a 10 year old minivan we bought used. My dad was thrilled to get $2500 from the insurance company when I got t-boned in his daily driver (a Chevy older than me). I'm wasn't about to make them pay 20k/year for 10 more years with an uncertain payoff considering my desired career path.

PS. Not picking on Princeton in particular. I have some pretty highly unqualified soccer-playing friends at UPenn.

Don't get me wrong, I never said that they don't ease admissions standards for athletes. I know this first hand. In the Ivy League, the sport that is one of the worst offenders is lacrosse, because of how competitive the schools are every year. I sincerely doubt that most kids on these teams would get in to their respective schools without the boon of a coach's designated admissions slot.

[Acturus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_676044.html

Student Loan Debt Outpaces Credit Card Debt
First Posted: 08- 9-10 03:37 PM | Updated: 08- 9-10 05:15 PM

Credit cards are no longer the largest source of debt for Americans -- according to the Wall Street Journal, student loans have taken the crown.

The Journal reports:

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion, according to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com.
The change is due in part to Americans paying down credit card debt and increased credit card regulations, according to the Journal.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed in March, promises to regulate the student loan industry by omitting private lenders in hopes of saving the government and the taxpayer money.

Still, many struggle under the weight of student loans -- and there's no easy out. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, bankruptcy is not an automatic option:

To discharge student loans in any bankruptcy filing, you need to prove "undue hardship." What does undue hardship mean in non-legal terms? According to bankruptcy judge John Ninfo, you or your dependent has to have a mental or physical condition that prevents you from working. Just not being able to afford your payments doesn't cut it.
And as for using credit cards to pay for college -- not such a great idea. According to TheStreet.com:


84% of college students had at least one credit card in 2009, up from 76% in 2004. The average amount of debt carried by college cardholders is $3,173 which represents a 46% increase over the 2004 figure of $2,169. The average number of cards per student is 4.6. Only 17% pay off their entire balance each month and 22% make just the minimum payment.

I didn't think this needed it's own thread, but it fits well here.