Elite schools aren't worth the money

[Rajah]

I have degrees from state schools and a so-called "elite" school. I feel each institution offered a comparable education. It's pretty clear that my "elite" education isn't going to pay off (after all, I don't want to be a lawyer anymore). Verdict? Save your cash!


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=elitecollege

[joft]

parents paying their kid's tuition seems like something from a scifi novel about a strange alien planet

to be one ask one what? falun gong?

[Rajah]

parents paying their kid's tuition seems like something from a scifi novel about a strange alien planetOh, and FYI, my parents paid $0 of my education.

[C.J.Woolf]

I talked with a guy who taught at a university and moonlighted at a community college. As he put it, you could get the same product (him) at either school.

On the other side, one of the best instructors I had in college was a temp from a community college.

[Nighthawk]

I went to an elite school for undergrad and a state university for grad work. I agree that you can get a similar education from either ... depending upon how hard you work. The elite schools, from my somewhat limited persepective, seem to force it down your throat ... whereas, at the other schools, it is up to you to seek it out.

Having said that, the elite school on my resume has landed me more than one job (and also lost a few based on bias/jealousy) ... even though it has little to do with my present career.

Oh yeah ... the elite school was on a full scholarship, so I did not have to pay for it ... fortunately.

[jread]

Define "elite school".... where did you go?

I'm at a private school that is damn expensive and pretty small, but it's not Ivy League or anything. Would that be considered "elite" or not? I know that I damn sure like it more than any of the state schools or community colleges I've been to.

[Hustler]

In my opinion, the main benefit of going to an elite school is that you have an opportunity to create a social network with the best and brightest. That can pay off far more than being able to put an elite school's name on your resumé, though the latter is worth something too. If you went to an elite school and you didn't think it was worth it, you just weren't smart enough to take full advantage of the value of the school.

[Dumpy]

Depending on the field, an elite school on your resume can give you instant credibility. Is that worth the price? You be the judge.

[Hustler]

Define "elite school".... where did you go?

For purposes of this thread, we could probably say any school in the top 20 universities or liberal arts colleges in US News and World Report plus Reed College (it refuses to participate in that listing, but would undoubtedly fall in the top 20 if it did) qualifies as an elite school.

[sbw]

I was going to mention the networking-for-the-future thing, but hustler already did. I would be inclined to agree with rajah's conclusion.

Scott

[Neppy]

The school I went to could be considered "elite". Upon entering (before I was chosen) I had to take a lengthy IQ test. Apparently the school chose students from varying IQ levels (from below average to MENSA level). I never found out where I ranked on the scale, but teachers seemed to have high expectations of me. It's a reputable school, sometimes coming out at #1 on the nationwide lists in regards to success rates. 100% of students get 5 or more GCSEs at C grade or above, without fail. However, this isn't without alot of grunt work from the teachers, who devote many hours of their spare time to the students (a job I couldn't quite handle). It's also one of the most technologically advanced schools in the country. It looks like the Pentagon (whoever designed the building designs prisons too... so it looks a bit like one, heh).

Will putting the school on my CV make me more employable? I have no idea. :unsure: Perhaps my qualifications'll do me justice though. Just today at an interview my interviewer was extremely impressed that I did a GNVQ at the age that I did, but everybody in my school did it. It was compulsory and the workload was collossal.

The thing that sets my old school apart from the others is that there are much higher expectations put upon the students (relatively speaking). They made it blatant that higher expectations will yield better results. Perhaps it's true.

[Claverhouse]

In my opinion, the main benefit of going to an elite school is that you have an opportunity to create a social network with the best and brightest. That can pay off far more than being able to put an elite school's name on your resumé, though the latter is worth something too. If you went to an elite school and you didn't think it was worth it, you just weren't smart enough to take full advantage of the value of the school.

Yup: over here, as you know, private schools are called 'Public Schools' --- an historical anomaly caused by the fact that the rich are more jealous of the poor than the poor are of the rich, so whenever schools were established to educate the poor the rich eventually took them over --- chaps from public schools, particularly the best ones not only have this networking thing, but in later life they always help their old alumni in cases of difficulty.

And, reverting back to the older style of Tory politics, the new leader of the Conservative Party went to Eton, unlike his equally horrible rival. People still have deference here.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Rajah]

I did go to an Ivy League. Putting it on my resume has helped slightly -- I've landed some interviews based on the prestige of my school alone. However, I would have had the same opportunities had I gone to a Texas state school and had decent grades. In fact, I maintain my opportunities would have been greater -- Texas tends to love "their own." Texas connections are worth tons more here than going to some Ivy League school.

[joecancer]

If you went to an elite school and you didn't think it was worth it, you just weren't smart enough to take full advantage of the value of the school.

The point of the article was that, even if you take full advantage of what an elite school has to offer, it may not be worth it considering the costs, the quality of your state's school, and your area of interest. It has nothing to do with not being smart enough to take advantage of the value of the school. Also, in my opinion, if you go to a top state school, you still have an opportunity to create a social network with the best and the brightest, only at a fraction of what it would cost you at an elite school. It would probably take more effort to find the best and brightest at these schools, but I'm sure they could be found.

[Rajah]

The point of the article was that, even if you take full advantage of what an elite school has to offer, it may not be worth it considering the costs, the quality of your state's school, and your area of interest. It has nothing to do with not being smart enough to take advantage of the value of the school. Also, in my opinion, if you go to a top state school, you still have an opportunity to create a social network with the best and the brightest, only at a fraction of what it would cost you at an elite school. It would probably take more effort to find the best and brightest at these schools, but I'm sure they could be found.Absolutely.

I think that the in-state connections you can make are of far greater value than whatever networking opportunities you can score going to an elite school.

I failed to mention in my last post that even with my degree, I still had to show every Texas employer what my connection to Texas was before they'd show any interest. They weren't convinced that I'd be willing to stay in Texas, given my background.

Further, my ex-roommate, who's in OK now, can't find a legal job. She has attended numerous networking events in OK. When she tells these idiots where her law degree is from, they seriously ask her if it's a ranked school (Um, hello? It's an Ivy League).. In my roommate's case, she would have been far better off with a degree from OU.

All I'm saying is that if you're doing a cost-benefit analysis, you're probably better off saving your money and finding a great state-school education. Whatever benefits you can get from attending your "elite" school are probably not worth the tens of thousands more you'll shell out.

[jread]

I did go to an Ivy League.

Again, what school?

One thing that drives me nuts on this forum is that none of you people ever say where you live, where you went to school, etc., etc. So freakin vague :mad:

[Rajah]

Again, what school?

One thing that drives me nuts on this forum is that none of you people ever say where you live, where you went to school, etc., etc. So freakin vague :mad:I'm just not comfortable sharing that on here... I'm sorry.

[moni]

i've been trying to convince myself that no matter what school you go to, it's up to you to make the best of it. i really hope that's true. i consider myself to be a hard worker with pretty good grades, but not fortunate enough to attend any private college since they are so expensive.

[joecancer]

Hard worker? What are you, a J?

Actually, this thread has made me wonder: how do INTPs get into elite colleges in the first place? It seems to me that an INTP can get good test scores on the SAT, but that getting good grades in high school requires actual work. I was one who completely shut it down in high school, and got Bs, which isn't good enough to get into an elite school. My college was probably top 30 or 40, but not elite. I know that not all INTPs are created equal, but it seems to me that to get into an elite college, you've got to be pretty motivated in high school to do the work and get good grades. If you went to an elite school, did you get in on brilliance alone, or in combination with hard work? If hard work was involved, where did you get the motivation at that age? Supportive INTP parents? INTP teachers? None of the above?

[Rhu]

I'm just not comfortable sharing that on here... I'm sorry.

Edit: I probably shouldn't give out where I found the clues, as that wouldn't be fun. Suffice it to say, Rajah's given away where she went to school if you have a decent memory and are looking to do research.

So I know, now. Haha. :P

[Rajah]

Edit: I probably shouldn't give out where I found the clues, as that wouldn't be fun. Suffice it to say, Rajah's given away where she went to school if you have a decent memory and are looking to do research.

So I know, now. Haha. :PI don't think I've given *quite* enough away yet.

What's with the interest in me today? Sheesh.

[moni]

Hard worker? What are you, a J?

huh, i just noticed that our mbti type isn't up anymore. i'm an isfj/istj. although i got a 4.0 in high school, i'm not a born genius like most of you here... i struggled to get those grades (except maybe in math, heh heh. i love math). my dad told me when i was in middle scool that i'd need to get scholarships if i wanted to go to college, and so... i worked my butt off. i'm not at a prestigious school (in fact it's labeled a party school... and i don't party), but i'm getting a lot out of it. -^_^-

[Rajah]

Hard worker? What are you, a J?

Actually, this thread has made me wonder: how do INTPs get into elite colleges in the first place? It seems to me that an INTP can get good test scores on the SAT, but that getting good grades in high school requires actual work. I was one who completely shut it down in high school, and got Bs, which isn't good enough to get into an elite school. My college was probably top 30 or 40, but not elite. I know that not all INTPs are created equal, but it seems to me that to get into an elite college, you've got to be pretty motivated in high school to do the work and get good grades. If you went to an elite school, did you get in on brilliance alone, or in combination with hard work? If hard work was involved, where did you get the motivation at that age? Supportive INTP parents? INTP teachers? None of the above?I was an overachiever in high school, which I attribute to a strong-J mom. My mom thinks she's an INTP, but that's a freaking lie. I've told this story before... once I brought home a C in 7th grade, and I watched her call boarding schools because of how I'd disappointed her. So, yeah, I did well out of fear. :)

Anyway, I got into every school I applied to coming out of high school. I went to my state school because I did well on the PSAT and scored a scholarship. I did badly my first semester of college (finally being on my own), but turned things around and did well enough to get into a decent grad school. Had pretty good grades once I found my major. Anyway, scored the bare minimum I needed there to get my M.A., but all of it together was good enough to get into my law school.

[joecancer]

What's your MA in Rajah?

[Rajah]

What's your MA in Rajah?My BA and MA are in linguistics.

[sbw]

... once I brought home a C in 7th grade, and I watched her call boarding schools because of how I'd disappointed her. So, yeah, I did well out of fear. :)

I would never have spoken to my mom again if she had pulled that shit with me. and I like my mom.

Scott

[Hustler]

I did go to an Ivy League. Putting it on my resume has helped slightly -- I've landed some interviews based on the prestige of my school alone. However, I would have had the same opportunities had I gone to a Texas state school and had decent grades. In fact, I maintain my opportunities would have been greater -- Texas tends to love "their own." Texas connections are worth tons more here than going to some Ivy League school.

That's great, if you want to live in Texas. Harvard connections are good the world around. Maybe they won't get you as far in Austin, but they will serve you better in Prague. I am a big proponent of going to graduate school where you intend to live and work, albeit, at the most elite school in that vicinity. Proximity outstrips prestige on the local level for most career paths. That said, some people don't want to live in Texas as their lives.

[Rajah]

I would never have spoken to my mom again if she had pulled that shit with me. and I like my mom.

ScottI love my mom to pieces. She was just doing what she thought was best for me. Took me a while to learn that she was just trying to live through me.

[Rajah]

That said, some people don't want to live in Texas as their lives.You're preaching to the choir.

[jread]

I'm just not comfortable sharing that on here... I'm sorry.

??? Fine, send me a PM then, lol.

[Hustler]

The point of the article was that, even if you take full advantage of what an elite school has to offer, it may not be worth it considering the costs, the quality of your state's school, and your area of interest. It has nothing to do with not being smart enough to take advantage of the value of the school. Also, in my opinion, if you go to a top state school, you still have an opportunity to create a social network with the best and the brightest, only at a fraction of what it would cost you at an elite school. It would probably take more effort to find the best and brightest at these schools, but I'm sure they could be found.

This depends a lot on the set of economic metrics you wish to use. If you want to go purely on the difference in what you earn over a lifetime after going to an elite school or a state school, you're looking at a delta in undergraduate expense of ~$150,000, using the $160,000 figure for an elite school and $10,000 for a state school. I am intentionally lowballing the state school figure, because it is easier to get scholarships to those places and, if it is local to where you grew up, you may be able to avoid room and board expenses. So, if the average person works about 40 years after graduating from college (again, just an estimate), that comes to a $3,750/year gap you have to recoup over your lifetime. If you factor in the effects of going into debt to finance your education, it could end up being more like $5,000 or $6,000 a year, at the very worst. I don't think it takes much in the way of added opportunity upfront to recoup that over a career. If your salary increases are on a percentage basis, a small initial improvement will compound richly over your life.

If you wish to go beyond mere earnings over a lifetime and factor in personal satisfaction, the elite school also wins there. A higher percentage of your classmates will be very intelligent and, as such, superior friend material for someone of an intellectual predisposition. Classes are smaller at most elite institutions as well, which gives you an opportunity to strive for deeper understanding of the things you study via more access to your professors and more chances to engage in enlightening discussion with your peers. Also, and especially for INTPs, we sometimes require a little prodding or a good challenge to get use genuinely motivated. You will, in theory, be challenged more at an elite school.

[Conan]

I also went to an "elite" undergrad school. I think for getting into "elite" law schools, medical schools, and to some extent graduate schools in general it definitely helps. If you want to get into i banking on wall street, its almost required.

Other than that, i dont think it makes a difference, you get out of your career what you put into it.

That said, its still nice to have the name there for the rest of your life.

[Conan]

As to the education at an "elite" school, the professors are definitely brilliant however they are chosen for the quality of thier research because thats what brings in the money and prestige to the university. I would qualify the education in general as not significantly better than that of a non-elite institution and in many instances, worse. That said, the quality of students is much higher which I consider a huge positive.

[Hypnos]

Elite schools tend to have lower student-to-faculty ratios, so you have greater access to said brilliant faculty. I have found this access to be priceless.

[joecancer]

I don't think it's that simple. I think there are a lot more factors that come into play. If you're studying to be a social worker, for example, it probably wouldn't make sense to start off with huge debt if you don't have to. Especially if you live in Virginia and could go to a school that is still elite despite being a state school. In addition, there is some value in not having mountains of debt to pay off (or in not forcing your parents to fork over 130K or more and work into their retirement years - a factor that is compounded if you have several brothers and sisters) even if you will acquire the means to make up the deficit over the course of your life.

I agree with you that an elite school will present more of a challenge, and hence might be better for someone like an INTP (though I do believe many schools have honors programs). But what about an ISFJ who just wants to be a nurse, or someone who just wants to be an elementary school teacher? My only point is that the ivys probably aren't for everyone, even if they can get in.

[Hypnos]

Most elite schools have extensive (and generous) financial aid programs. It's still not easy, so one needs to decide whether they'll exploit what a still-expensive, elite school has to offer, but it's not necessarily a huge-debt situation.

[Conan]

Most elite schools have extensive (and generous) financial aid programs. It's still not easy, so one needs to decide whether they'll exploit what a still-expensive, elite school has to offer, but it's not necessarily a huge-debt situation.

Agreed. I had 100% of my financial need net. It cost me about the same as it would have to go to a state school.

[Conan]

Most elite schools have extensive (and generous) financial aid programs. It's still not easy, so one needs to decide whether they'll exploit what a still-expensive, elite school has to offer, but it's not necessarily a huge-debt situation.

Agreed. I had 100% of my financial need as determined by the FAFSA and PROFILE met. It cost me about the same as it would have to go to a state school.


But what about an ISFJ who just wants to be a nurse, or someone who just wants to be an elementary school teacher? My only point is that the ivys probably aren't for everyone, even if they can get in.

Also agreed. My ENFP sister is attending the same school with a major in cultural anthropology. She wants to be a youth minister.

[coffeezombie]

My state school is also an elite public school. My advice is to move to Michigan so your kids get a good cheap education. We need people to improve the economy here.

[joecancer]

Yeah, Michigan is one of those state schools that lots of kids from other states spend loads of money to attend. Most of the big ten schools are pretty good state schools.

UNC is another one.

[sbw]

My state school is also an elite public school. My advice is to move to Michigan so your kids get a good cheap education. We need people to improve the economy here.

too fuckin' cold. (I'm from detroit.) I would estimate that 30% of the people I know down here are from the midwest.

Scott

[coffeezombie]

too fuckin' cold. (I'm from detroit.) I would estimate that 30% of the people I know down here are from the midwest.

I noticed that when I was in Dallas too. That's why the accent in large cities in the south is starting to sound northern. Those of us who stay in Michigan either like the cold or are too poor to move, I guess.

[jax0m]

2B1ASK1

to be one ask one what? falun gong?

Several years ago, "2B1ASK1" became a popular slogan and has appeared on many Masonic-related documents and even as "bumper stickers" on the automobiles of many members of the Fraternity. It refers to the fact that, in most Masonic Jurisdictions, (and California in particular), in order to become a Mason you must first ask someone who is already a member of the Fraternity to become one. (He cannot ask you to join)...

[Rajah]

If you wish to go beyond mere earnings over a lifetime and factor in personal satisfaction, the elite school also wins there. A higher percentage of your classmates will be very intelligent and, as such, superior friend material for someone of an intellectual predisposition. Classes are smaller at most elite institutions as well, which gives you an opportunity to strive for deeper understanding of the things you study via more access to your professors and more chances to engage in enlightening discussion with your peers. Also, and especially for INTPs, we sometimes require a little prodding or a good challenge to get use genuinely motivated. You will, in theory, be challenged more at an elite school.Respectfully, Hustler, I disagree.

1) In law school, I met many book-smart people who could recite page after page of text, and would read hornbook upon hornbook to get "the professor's view," then regurgitate this on exams. I made a small group of friends with whom I could debate, but on the whole, law school is a bunch of SJs.

2) My classes were no smaller at my law school than they were at my state schools. My law school was very small, and my state schools had, respectively, 40K and 50K students. Sure, at my state schools I had a few large courses. However, I entered in the honors program and took several smaller "entry-level" courses. Plus, once you're in your major, the courses are typically small anyway (at least in linguistics -- I can't speak for bio majors, for example).

Also, in my state schools, I never had any trouble accessing my professors. I always found them very accommodating. Never had problems meeting with them to discuss any questions I had. I found both experiences to be comparable.

All in all, I think any education is what you make of it. I don't feel my state schools were in any way inferior to my admittedly more prestigious university. While I loved my law school experience, I'm not sure I would have done the same in retrospect.

Finally, had I chosen a state school at a cost of $0, I would have avoided the over $1000 in monthly student loan debt repayments I'm making.

[Ivy]

UNC is another one.

Yay for in-state tuition!

And I suddenly have the urge to go upturn a car on Franklin Street.

[Hustler]

Respectfully, Hustler, I disagree.

Yeah, I disagree with you. I went to both an elite school and state schools at various points as an undergraduate and then graduate student. The intellectual opportunities and resources available to me at my elite school were significantly superior to those at the state schools I attended. Furthermore, the caliber of student was much higher at the elite school. I still keep up with a lot of those people today, but I don't keep up with a soul from any of the state schools I attended.

It could be that you chose law as a field of study and, on the whole, law attracts more practically-minded people and fewer head-in-the-clouds intellectuals. As such, your experiences were skewed.

[Madrigal]

Interesting discussion. Over here, no elite school compares to the academic excellence and the international prestige of the University of Buenos Aires, which is public and totally free of charge. And that is just the way it should be.

Argentina was the political epicenter for University Reform in Latin America, way back in 1918. Free and unlimited access, as well as the separation of the State and the Church from University government were the main rights obtained. We have managed to retain more rights in this regard in comparison to other Latin American countries, where tuition and other forms of elitism have been implemented since the big Reform Movement.

The UBA is autonomous and has it's own government, in a similar way as an embassy. This has made it a refuge for political activists in the past, although this autonomy has been violated before.

But I'm rambling.

Yeah, most elite schools here are for rich kids that don't want to make the effort to meet the high standards of the University of Buenos Aires.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Interesting discussion. Over here, no elite school compares to the academic excellence and the international prestige of the University of Buenos Aires, which is public and totally free of charge. And that is just the way it should be.



You have free college there??? WTF?!?!?

You just blew my mind.

I am in awe.

Argentina rocks!

I would never leave school.

[Madrigal]

You have free college there??? WTF?!?!?

You just blew my mind.

I am in awe.

Argentina rocks!

I would never leave school.
Lol. Yes, it's not only free, you don't even have to be signed up to attend classes. You just walk right in there, take a seat, and maybe ask the teacher if you could audit and participate in the projects. You could live in there. And you have the most respected intellectuals in the country teaching classes. I had a teacher that worked with Tarkovsky, for example.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Lol. Yes, it's not only free, you don't even have to be signed up to attend classes. You just walk right in there, take a seat, and maybe ask the teacher if you could audit and participate in the projects. You could live in there. And you have the most respected intellectuals in the country teaching classes. I had a teacher that worked with Tarkovsky, for example.

I know where I am retiring too.

[moni]

Lol. Yes, it's not only free, you don't even have to be signed up to attend classes. You just walk right in there, take a seat, and maybe ask the teacher if you could audit and participate in the projects. You could live in there. And you have the most respected intellectuals in the country teaching classes. I had a teacher that worked with Tarkovsky, for example.

now that is awesome....
i had some co-workers during the summer that were from france, and they said that college was free for them too (except they'd have to pay some small fee around $200 or something). oh why is america behind?

[Rajah]

It could be that you chose law as a field of study and, on the whole, law attracts more practically-minded people and fewer head-in-the-clouds intellectuals. As such, your experiences were skewed.I'd agree my law school experiences skewed my perception, as anyone's experiences in anything skew their perception.

Don't forget I also went to grad school before law school, so I've dealt with the post-grad head-in-the-clouds intellectuals too.

After reading again, I really don't think our opinions necessarily diverge on this issue. All I'm saying is that state schools probably have similar or equal available opportunities as elite schools. True, they may be harder to find, but they're there. Indeed, because state schools typically have larger campuses, the odds are that there is a significant number of brainiacs on campus, and brains tend to attract brains -- you'll find these people and network with them.

I realize I may have been fortunate in that I had an awesome state-school education, at a bargain price ($0!). But I don't feel my experience was that unique. I didn't even take full advantage of what my university had to offer, but I still managed to find a niche, work with incredible and brilliant professors, meet smart students, and have a good time in the process. Not a bad deal.

[C.J.Woolf]

oh why is america behind?
In America the governing philosophy is "You're on your own."

[jread]

In America the governing philosophy is "You're on your own."

Exactly. We don't have the same government support that many other countries have. You either make it on your own or you're on the streets.... no "safety net". I don't think many people realize this. It's true that the "sky is the limit" in America, but there is also no limit to the hole you can dig yourself into.

[C.J.Woolf]

Exactly. We don't have the same government support that many other countries have. You either make it on your own or you're on the streets.... no "safety net". I don't think many people realize this. It's true that the "sky is the limit" in America, but there is also no limit to the hole you can dig yourself into.
Dig, hell. You can fall into one, and the end result is the same.

[Hypnos]

I realize I may have been fortunate in that I had an awesome state-school education, at a bargain price ($0!). But I don't feel my experience was that unique. I didn't even take full advantage of what my university had to offer, but I still managed to find a niche, work with incredible and brilliant professors, meet smart students, and have a good time in the process. Not a bad deal.
I went to an elite, small, private school for undergrad, and now I'm at what is probably the most prestigious state school in the US as a graduate student. Here's what my students have told me, and how it compares negatively with my undergrad experience:

* Bureaucracy here sucks: Good luck getting an appointment with a dean. As a graduate student, I'm fortunate to have department staff who take care of a lot of stuff for me, but it must be maddening for undergrads.

* Housing here sucks: You most likely have to live off-campus and fend for yourself. As an undergrad, this means your social network is built through your major instead of through your living group, which would give you broader exposure. And, you have to waste time travelling, as well as cooking and cleaning.

* Little cooperation between departments: Students trying to get joint or double-majors don't get much help from departments, as many details are handled internally and the departments don't want to deal with special cases.

* Lower density of interesting people: Yes, smart, able students will attract others, but this occurs in a limited scope through classes you happen to take together (most likely in your major). By contrast, I met remarkable people even through intramural sports.

Here are some things the state school does better:

* No babying: If you don't deserve to be here, it's more likely you'll be summarily ejected -- no coddling in the form of liberal incompletes, special tutors, etc.

* More flexible enrollment: This is great for professionals who want to earn a second degree part time or for those who have to work to support themselves. You can get degree credit on a per-class basis.

* Cheaper

Overall impressions:

If you're focused you can get a fine education here, esp. in the departments with fewer students where you can get attention and lab space from professors. The quality of the departments is not uniformly spectacular, but if you're in a spectalcuar department, you should be well-prepared for a job or graduate school.

However, at the elite schools there are other points of emphasis besides professional preparation:

* Broad, superior education

* Rich social experience where you meet many people who are as smart and passionate as you

* Friendly, accessible administration and convenient lifestyle so you can focus on learning

* Easy access to professors (of the highest quality) whether it's your major or not (I found this to be invaluable)

* Networking for the future and an esprit de corps (I don't care so much for this last one)

A state school relies on the economy of scale to fulfill its mission of accessible education and to be able to afford brilliant faculty and competitive research facilities. In doing so, the student body will necessarily be dilute and one cannot expect the luxuries of personal attention from everybody and hassle-free room, board, etc.

The alleged "added value" with these benefits is that beyond professional preparation, you are cultivating your mind. I am certainly better for it.

[nihilist]

On a different note, the notion of merit based full tuition scholarships eludes me. Aside from obvious venues like national merit scholarships, it's often difficult to convince an admissions committee of your potential. Unless attending a small, obscure university, even people with SAT scores in the range of 1400-1500 have trouble acquiring full tuition scholarships.

[Rajah]

On a different note, the notion of merit based full tuition scholarships eludes me. Aside from obvious venues like national merit scholarships, it's often difficult to convince an admissions committee of your potential. Unless attending a small, obscure university, even people with SAT scores in the range of 1400-1500 have trouble acquiring full tuition scholarships.Also the elite schools, at least when I began undergrad in '93, typically didn't offer merit-based full-tuition scholarships. So I couldn't attend the elite schools I applied to, and was accepted to, because I didn't qualify for need-based aid. And although I did not qualify for need-based aid, my parents could not afford to send me to an elite university. That's mostly why I fortuitously ended up at a state school -- I landed a Nat'l Merit scholarship to two, and chose one.

[indie]

The problem with "elite" schools is that those who are accepted and/or teach forget (or fail to realize) the plight of the non-elite. The elite become so caught-up in their "eliteness" that they have little time to ponder or realize the *actual* situation of the non-elite. I attended a B-school. Got a master's degree "efficiently" (3.5 years for the BS and 1 year for the M).

And now I deliver pizza for a living. :) Hilarious on so many levels.

[Hypnos]

indiejade,

So what would you have had elite schools do differently to help you? Conversely, what would you have had to offer to the other students there?

[indie]

indiejade,

So what would you have had elite schools do differently to help you? Conversely, what would you have had to offer to the other students there?

You need to turn your question marks around.

[nihilist]

The problem with "elite" schools is that those who are accepted and/or teach forget (or fail to realize) the plight of the non-elite. The elite become so caught-up in their "eliteness" that they have little time to ponder or realize the *actual* situation of the non-elite. I attended a B-school. Got a master's degree "efficiently" (3.5 years for the BS and 1 year for the M).

And now I deliver pizza for a living. :) Hilarious on so many levels.


I am contemplating on going to a B(or C)-school myself on the sole reason that it's cheap, and I can probably get half tuition off as a scholarship.

[indie]

I am contemplating on going to a B(or C)-school myself on the sole reason that it's cheap, and I can probably get half tuition off as a scholarship.

Good for you. An education is what you make of it, not what the "elite" wrap it up to be. Elite schools tend to prey upon intellectual insatiability as an end to a means for profit or prestige, whereas true intellectual insatiability is not something that can be measured in any measurable term or sense.

[Hypnos]

You need to turn your question marks around.
What should you have done to help out the elite schools? :P

As to what they have to offer, if you are truly "intellectually insatiable," 4 years at such a school is a great, wild ride for your brain. Everyone around you is similarly inclined, and the best minds in the world look over your shoulder when you're building power supplies, constructing proofs or just talking shit. Your fellow students might be designing new computer architectures, credibly planning world domination, or building an award-winning piano repertoire. (These, in fact, were my friends from my dorm wing.) The small lessons I learned and the friendships I gained, with people whose ability and ambition I admire, are priceless.

BTW, I drew copious amounts of financial aid to finish my degree, nearly all of it from the school's private coffers. The sum exceeded the cost to attend a state school, but the difference was more than worth it; the prestige of my bachelor's degree is of little importance now that I'm pursuing my PhD.

[Architectonic]

Unless attending a small, obscure university, even people with SAT scores in the range of 1400-1500 have trouble acquiring full tuition scholarships.

What are SAT scores of 1400-1500 in percentile terms?

[Hypnos]

Looks like 96 to 99 percentile, according to the published table (http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/02_v&m_composite_percentile_ranks_0506.pdf). The other tables (http://www.collegeboard.com/prof/counselors/tests/sat/scores/data_tables.html) are interesting.

[nihilist]

Good for you. An education is what you make of it, not what the "elite" wrap it up to be. Elite schools tend to prey upon intellectual insatiability as an end to a means for profit or prestige, whereas true intellectual insatiability is not something that can be measured in any measurable term or sense.


What you say rings true. However, intellectual insatiability is not an exclusive participant in the cultivation of the mind. Brilliance is the symbiosis between native intelligence and intellectual insatiability.

[coffeezombie]

What should you have done to help out the elite schools? :P

As to what they have to offer, if you are truly "intellectually insatiable," 4 years at such a school is a great, wild ride for your brain. Everyone around you is similarly inclined, and the best minds in the world look over your shoulder when you're building power supplies, constructing proofs or just talking shit. Your fellow students might be designing new computer architectures, credibly planning world domination, or building an award-winning piano repertoire. (These, in fact, were my friends from my dorm wing.) The small lessons I learned and the friendships I gained, with people whose ability and ambition I admire, are priceless.

These people are *too* motivated. I'd rather just get the work done that I need to get done, do it well, and then relax. That's why I'm glad I went to a state school. It seems to be that most of the INTPs on here are like this when it comes to work.

[Zephyrus055]

Here's my situation in college. I think I wasted my parent's money on textbooks, because I never opened them. Moreover, I never studied more than two hours either (cramming). I failed Math (algebra/geometry) and got Bs in Logic/Ancient history.

Despite the fact that I couldn't get in to an elite school, I honestly think an elite school is not worth it - just an excuse to inflate the price because the campus welcomed some of the most prestigious doctors to do breakthrough experiments.

[Hypnos]

These people are *too* motivated. I'd rather just get the work done that I need to get done, do it well, and then relax. That's why I'm glad I went to a state school. It seems to be that most of the INTPs on here are like this when it comes to work.
Yeah, to hell with being told what I need to do, or sitting back obliviously and grinding away -- the world is too interesting.

[afton]

My BA and MA are in linguistics.
I wanted to major in that too, I think lingustics is very INTP

[crule81]

I've never attended a public school (well, undergrad had some "colleges" that were public, but I didn't take any classes in them). Although I have nothing with which to compare it, I believe that my private school education K-12 was the most beneficial to intellectual growth. Because class size was smaller, I received much more individual attention than I think I would have at a public school. It's also important to realize (as others have pointed out) that one learns from his or her peers perhaps as much as one learns from the teacher. Consequently, it is immensely beneficial to have a class of ten students in which eight probably have genius IQ's (or at least 1400+ SAT scores).

That being said, I also attended an "elite" undergrad institution and a lawschool that has bounced in and out of the "top 25". The result is that I an currently unemployed and living in a shitty apartment with my father. To preempt hustler, I realize that I have fucked up by not taking advantage of all of the resources the schools offered and deciding to reside away from both institutions' alumni bases.

I do believe that I received an excellent education as an undergrad, however-especially during the last few years where I was able to study under some very good history professors. Law school was a bit different. Mostly because it is basically a glorified trade school that doesn't teach to "head-in-the-clouds" people such as me.

[coffeezombie]

That being said, I also attended an "elite" undergrad institution and a lawschool that has bounced in and out of the "top 25". The result is that I an currently unemployed and living in a shitty apartment with my father. To preempt hustler, I realize that I have fucked up by not taking advantage of all of the resources the schools offered and deciding to reside away from both institutions' alumni bases.

Do people from elite schools just decide not to live in the Detroit area? I'd think there are a few of them there, at least.

[crule81]

Do people from elite schools just decide not to live in the Detroit area? I'd think there are a few of them there, at least.

There probably are very few in North Dakota as well, but given the size of the Detroit area, there should be more. Michigan as a whole simply cannot attract talented young people, especially. It's a very blue-collar town that hasn't been known for its culture since the early sixties. Also, the economy has generally been worse than the rest of the nation for a long time. Most people who go to very good universities see it as a ticket out of town. My high school friends have all left for greener pastures and my college and law school colleagues didn't even think of going to Michigan after graduation. Despite the fact that firms from all over the country conducted on campus interviews at law school, not one came in from Detroit.

[Pooja]

agreed (with above post). I cannot wait to get out of Kalamazoo. Better yet, out of the entire, god-fearing Midwest!

[afton]

I have degrees from state schools and a so-called "elite" school. I feel each institution offered a comparable education. It's pretty clear that my "elite" education isn't going to pay off (after all, I don't want to be a lawyer anymore). Verdict? Save your cash!

Haven't read the article yet, but, if you go to elite school, you have the
advantage of networking with children of elite people, which in the future
may provide you with job opportunities or marriage prospects.

[coffeezombie]

Haven't read the article yet, but, if you go to elite school, you have the
advantage of networking with children of elite people, which in the future
may provide you with job opportunities or marriage prospects.
Why would you want to marry an elite person more than an ordinary one?

[indie]

A state school relies on the economy of scale to fulfill its mission of accessible education and to be able to afford brilliant faculty and competitive research facilities. In doing so, the student body will necessarily be dilute and one cannot expect the luxuries of personal attention from everybody and hassle-free room, board, etc.

The alleged "added value" with these benefits is that beyond professional preparation, you are cultivating your mind. I am certainly better for it.

I did not attend an "elite" school, but the "broad" and "superior" (qualitative and quantative) aspects are subjective. Sure, there were some awesome professors . . . some useless classes . . . way too many requisites and prerequisites. And though I realized too late that I'd picked the wrong major, I have no regrets (even if the student loans make me want to rawr).

But anyway. It's a matter of record that Republicans piss me off to no end . . . so there's that. ;) Let the Mormon Republicans (that treat marriage as a business!) have their giant families and giant houses and giant gas-guzzling vehicles and numerous tax write-offs . . . if that's where they want to be; good for them.

[Hypnos]

I did not attend an "elite" school, but the "broad" and "superior" (qualitative and quantative) aspects are subjective. [...]
Perhaps, one could devise a metric for post-graduate success that corrects for insitutional prestige, to test the cost-effectiveness of the two educational models.


Sure, there were some awesome professors . . . some useless classes . . . way too many requisites and prerequisites. And though I realized too late that I'd picked the wrong major, I have no regrets (even if the student loans make me want to rawr).
This doesn't say much -- how "awesome" and accessible, compared to a private school?

The hypothesis is that the best research institutions will draw the best faculty minds, and the most prestigious schools will draw the highest concentration of able students. Prestigious research institutions will then be the most rewarding intellectual environments. Do you have a counterexample?


But anyway. It's a matter of record that Republicans piss me off to no end . . . so there's that. ;) Let the Mormon Republicans (that treat marriage as a business!) have their giant families and giant houses and giant gas-guzzling vehicles and numerous tax write-offs . . . if that's where they want to be; good for them. The karma police have noted their presence.
Irrelevant crap.

[fripping]

I had a chance to go to Reed college (it's about 15 miles from my house) but turned it down after taking a couple of gratis classes there because I found the whole environment snobbish, sheltered, and irrelevant. I just don't even give enough of a crap about "quality education", "success" or "silky smooth beaver pelts" or whatever interests people these days to even bother with that jazz, I went to a less elite private school which stifled the utter hell out of me, so now after a year of study abroad as a form of escape attempt I'm moving on to state school (sheltered and irrelevant, just not as snotty), expecting nothing more than just to finally freaking graduate and get a job plowing the sun or anything else that could conceivably put food in my mouth and pay the monthly internet fee for my crippling porno addiction. Reed is utterly loaded with smart people, but I have a gut feeling that if I spent 4 years there I'd have the same kind of non-achieving smartass friends as I do now.

Time will tell whether I'm an idiot or not.

[neoGnostic]

My 2 cents:

I teach as an adjunct professor at several schools, from 'elite' to state college to community college.

My undergraduate degree is from an 'elite' school; I went to a state college for my masters' because it was conveniently located and permitted part-time students (I had a full-time job).

Consider the following:

1. To offer a degree, a college needs to comply with requirements from an accreditation board, so both elite and ordinary schools need to meet the same requirements.

2. Most professors genuinely try to provide a good education for their students. Elite schools are able to hire teachers with more impressive credentials in their professions, but being accomplished as a doctor, lawyer, etc. does not guarantee they will be very good at *teaching* that profession. In practice your chances are about equally likely of getting a good or bad teacher at nearly any college. And nowadays, most schools are using lots of adjunct faculty, so as was mentioned earlier in the thread its very likely that you would get the same professors teaching at several colleges of varying reputations.

3. Facilities and resources vary widely between colleges. The community college where I teach has much better computer labs than the elite college.

4. Elite colleges have more students applying to them than ordinary colleges, so the admissions boards have a bigger talent pool to choose from. In elite colleges, more of the students are motivated and competitive, which brings up the level of the entire class' work. As a student you will tend to work about as hard as your peers, so you may not achieve as much in an ordinary school.

5. Your classmates often become your primary networking source for the early part of your career. Your classmates in elite schools are likely to be more productive sources for networking.

6. When applying for a job, employers are more impressed by applicants with degrees from elite colleges on their resume. You may have an easier time getting a job interview than if you have a degree from an ordinary school.

So the message is that attending an elite college has benefits which justify the expense, but because of your classmates not because of a superior education.

If you can't get in to an elite college (either because of grades or expense) you can still be successful. You just have to work a little harder. Remember that *most* people don't go to elite schools.

[Hypnos]

2. Most professors genuinely try to provide a good education for their students. Elite schools are able to hire teachers with more impressive credentials in their professions, but being accomplished as a doctor, lawyer, etc. does not guarantee they will be very good at *teaching* that profession. In practice your chances are about equally likely of getting a good or bad teacher at nearly any college. And nowadays, most schools are using lots of adjunct faculty, so as was mentioned earlier in the thread its very likely that you would get the same professors teaching at several colleges of varying reputations.
I think it's unlikely that an elite research institution would use adjunct professors (I have encountered none). Also, even if they aren't great teachers, a professor active in research is useful when you can pick his brain and he has the deep understanding to answer intelligently, or even put you to work.

Otherwise, I agree with you -- it's one's fellow students who are similarly qualified who make it really fun.

[avalanche]

The elite schools, from my somewhat limited persepective, seem to force it down your throat ... whereas, at the other schools, it is up to you to seek it out.

This is my impression, too. I might be doing better at an "elite" school for just that reason, but other than that, I agree that it's probably a waste of money.

[pavel_lishin]

I figure that depending on what field you're in, having gone to the elite school might help out quite a bit with job offers and such.

[bergenski]

I went to an elite school for the stupidest major...journalism. I paid through the nose (26,000+ per year) and starting salaries in television journalism are like 10 dollars an hour and it goes that way for many years until you can get a "normal" salary like $50,000...so you have to be committed to it, which I wasn't, and that really hurts...

[Edmond Zedo]

I have degrees from state schools and a so-called "elite" school. I feel each institution offered a comparable education. It's pretty clear that my "elite" education isn't going to pay off (after all, I don't want to be a lawyer anymore). Verdict? Save your cash!


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=elitecollege
Which school taught you about inductive logic?

[Ivy]

I went to an elite school for the stupidest major...journalism. I paid through the nose (26,000+ per year) and starting salaries in television journalism are like 10 dollars an hour and it goes that way for many years until you can get a "normal" salary like $50,000...so you have to be committed to it, which I wasn't, and that really hurts...

My sister was a Journalism and Mass Communications major at a very well-respected state university, and she made 65K her first year out. Bitch. <_<

Although, to be fair, her specialization was in marketing, which is a little more lucrative than broadcast journalism.

Edited to add that I didn't mean that to sound as snotty as it did. I was an English major for fuck's sake, so I won't be making big bucks anytime soon. :)

[Serotonin]

My sister was a Journalism and Mass Communications major at a very well-respected state university, and she made 65K her first year out. Bitch. <_<

Although, to be fair, her specialization was in marketing, which is a little more lucrative than broadcast journalism.

Edited to add that I didn't mean that to sound as snotty as it did. I was an English major for fuck's sake, so I won't be making big bucks anytime soon. :)

By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.

"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

- Bill Hicks

[Ivy]

By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.

"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

- Bill Hicks
:rofl:

[last_caress]

^^^^
AMEN.

"Mr. Freedman recently told a researcher into the curious history of William James Sidis. Sidis used to sit on an old sofa in Freedman's living room and talk to him and his sister. Sidis told them he hated Harvard and that anyone who sends his son to college is a fool―a boy can learn more in a public library."

[Hypnos]

* What's wrong with marketing?

* I'm sure Harvard was for Sidis what grade school was for me -- I was able to impute more things than the teachers had understood. This was not the case when I attended my prestigious alma mater, and I gained much by picking the brains of my betters.

[Serotonin]

* What's wrong with marketing?


My personal problem is that the images and ideas that the profession creates are fundamentally empty and false. It is intellectually and emotionally empty, and perverts human nature.

[Conan]

My personal problem is that the images and ideas that the profession creates are fundamentally empty and false. It is intellectually and emotionally empty, and perverts human nature.

They're technically not false, which would be illegal, just presented in the best possible light.

[Serotonin]

They're technically not false, which would be illegal, just presented in the best possible light.

Their implicit suggestions are false. Hence, dishonesty. Hence, my dislike of the profession.

[last_caress]

* What's wrong with marketing?

It's the main reason I don't answer the phone anymore, watch tv, listen to the radio or check my messages for weeks sometimes.
In addition to that: Compromise of artistic vision. eg. product placement in movies.
Marketing feels like an invasion to me.

My reason for posting the Sidis quote was out of irritation of our societies tendency to be more concerned with the symbol of education than actual knowledge/competence rather than a general indictment of higher education, which was probably his actual purpose (the latter that is).

[bergenski]

They're technically not false, which would be illegal, just presented in the best possible light.

In India they are false...you don't know what you are getting when you buy their products...I drank nearly a whole bottle of supposedly vodka like it was nothing...definitely not the normal proof of vodka, as it said on the bottle. You'd find all kinds of so-called designer clothes that were clearly fake...labelled 100% wool when it clearly was not...I don't even want to think about what were in the cookies, which cost about 10 cents for a whole box...but that was a different place...I don't think consumer protection takes a high precedence there...

[Pooja]

In India they are false...you don't know what you are getting when you buy their products...I drank nearly a whole bottle of supposedly vodka like it was nothing...definitely not the normal proof of vodka, as it said on the bottle. You'd find all kinds of so-called designer clothes that were clearly fake...labelled 100% wool when it clearly was not...I don't even want to think about what were in the cookies, which cost about 10 cents for a whole box...but that was a different place...I don't think consumer protection takes a high precedence there...

That's funny. If anybody every visits India (from a developed country), they should count on getting sick AT LEAST once. The water their is unsafe, and when you buy bottled water, a lot of the time, you're being cheated (they collect used empty bottles, and refill them with city water).

So, that's why elite schools are over-rated...:whistle:

[Hypnos]

My personal problem is that the images and ideas that the profession creates are fundamentally empty and false. It is intellectually and emotionally empty, and perverts human nature.
Not really. The marketers of Thinkpads know what their consumers want, and highlight how their offerings meet their needs.

You could argue that in many markets, advertisers play on the frailty of people -- irrationality, social insecurity, weak personal values, etc. I think this is clearly outweighed by the need to get the word out about products; if the word is catchy, all the better.

I like these commercials (http://www.unitedrhapsody.com/unitedrhapsody_commercial.htm) quite a bit, though I've quit their frequent flyer program.

***

Tying back to the thread topic, a college "building its brand" is a good way for students to ensure their own marketability, and for companies to know that their hires will meet a minimum standard as well as streamline their recruiting. This also works for grad schools, since GRE testing is at best imperfect.

[Serotonin]

Not really. The marketers of Thinkpads know what their consumers want, and highlight how their offerings meet their needs.

You could argue that in many markets, advertisers play on the frailty of people -- irrationality, social insecurity, weak personal values, etc. I think this is clearly outweighed by the need to get the word out about products; if the word is catchy, all the better.

There's providing information about products and then there's assuming that everyone will be interested in them. Phone calls at 10am on a Saturday morning advertising a new phone plan are presumptuous, intrusive and arrogant. Commercials spliced in between TV programs when ostensibly all the audience wants to do is find out what happens next, for me, creates a negative impression of the advertised product rather than a positive one. Giant billboards with the implicit equation of "Drink beer: get laid more often" invoke pity rather than the desire to drink beer. How patronising of the companies to assume that sort of weakness in each and every one of its viewers. Or at least seeing those who would have those weaknesses as purely a source of profit, rather than needing psychological help.

Advertisements underscore the misguided Thatcherism of "We live in an economy, not a society" i.e. the pursuit of profit at the expense of human self-awareness and well-being is legitemate.

I once entertained the idea of cataloguing all the TV advertisements I could find on a blog, and satirising them. Potential lawsuits were the turnoff.

[Hypnos]

There's providing information about products and then there's assuming that everyone will be interested in them. Phone calls at 10am on a Saturday morning advertising a new phone plan are presumptuous, intrusive and arrogant. Commercials spliced in between TV programs when ostensibly all the audience wants to do is find out what happens next, for me, creates a negative impression of the advertised product rather than a positive one. Giant billboards with the implicit equation of "Drink beer: get laid more often" invoke pity rather than the desire to drink beer. How patronising of the companies to assume that sort of weakness in each and every one of its viewers. Or at least seeing those who would have those weaknesses as purely a source of profit, rather than needing psychological help.
You agree that telemarketing calls and TV commercials do work for businesses, to find new customers and enhance brand presence -- otherwise they wouldn't do it. These methods just happen to annoy you (and me as well).

However, I would be wary of calling it patronizing. For every person who engages these methods out of insecurity or loneliness, there are probably many who understand they are being sold on something and embrace it. Even the boldest kitsch: NASCAR sponsor products, American Idol CDs, etc.


Advertisements underscore the misguided Thatcherism of "We live in an economy, not a society" i.e. the pursuit of profit at the expense of human self-awareness and well-being is legitemate.
You make two dangerous assumptions:

* That there is an objective standard of well-being and self-awareness

* That seduction, whether it be product advertising or some other flavor, is detrimental

Personal choice is what unifies economy and society.


I once entertained the idea of cataloguing all the TV advertisements I could find on a blog, and satirising them. Potential lawsuits were the turnoff.
Larry Flynt has the necessary coffers to defend his creations (http://www.larryflynt.com/ad_parodies_gallery/).

[Serotonin]

You agree that telemarketing calls and TV commercials do work for businesses, to find new customers and enhance brand presence -- otherwise they wouldn't do it. These methods just happen to annoy you (and me as well).

However, I would be wary of calling it patronizing. For every person who engages these methods out of insecurity or loneliness, there are probably many who understand they are being sold on something and embrace it. Even the boldest kitsch: NASCAR sponsor products, American Idol CDs, etc.

Well, I guess my form of protest would be to distance myself intellectually from the ideals of marketing and seduction. Such goes political freedom.




* That there is an objective standard of well-being and self-awareness

You're right, but reading a breadth of subjective anecdotes on relative improvements goes a long way. Many people will say that "this book changed my life", "this film changed my life", "this song changed my life", but I am yet to read one that says "this advertisement changed my life". You can advertise the book, the film, or the CD, but the ad is a tool, not a self-enhancing entity in itself, except perhaps on a crude level (I'm thinking the "Real men of Genius" bud light ads here).


* That seduction, whether it be product advertising or some other flavor, is detrimental

Not always, but frequently.

For example:
- this (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/17/1063625097375.html?from=storyrhs) instance from a couple of years ago shows gross disregard for social sensitivities.

- Fijian women being exposed to american television

http://www.medceu.com/course-no-test.cfm?CID=1681



Eating disorders were basically nonexistent in 1995, and there was little talk about dieting or weight, but after less than 3 years of limited exposure to western network television shows, a study found that 11% of the women in the study used self-induced vomiting, 29% were at risk for eating disorders, 69% had dieted to lose weight, and 74% felt "too fat.

Of course, it is naive to think is not happening on a broader social scale.


Personal choice is what unifies economy and society.

Agreed. Marketing, on the other hand, which attempts to influence personal choice for solely economic (definitely not social) reasons, in many instances corrupts this personal choice with various sophistries to convince a person they need a product, when they don't. Of course, it's up to the consumer to exercise his or her choice, but making the conscious choice to exploit the foibles of human nature is hardly a noble or humanitarian cause either.

This is not a rally cry to ban marketing, but a personal opinion of mine that it is an ignoble profession.

[Hypnos]

Agreed. Marketing, on the other hand, which attempts to influence personal choice for solely economic (definitely not social) reasons, in many instances corrupts this personal choice with various sophistries to convince a person they need a product, when they don't. Of course, it's up to the consumer to exercise his or her choice, but making the conscious choice to exploit the foibles of human nature is hardly a noble or humanitarian cause either.

This is not a rally cry to ban marketing, but a personal opinion of mine that it is an ignoble profession.
So where do you draw the line between a willingness to be seduced, and being manipulated?

I see this not only as a moral problem, but an epistemological one (perhaps, even a metaphysical one).

[Serotonin]

So where do you draw the line between a willingness to be seduced, and being manipulated?


Having enough information about a product to my satisfaction, which include sources outside the product's advertising material.

[Hypnos]

Having enough information about a product to my satisfaction, which include sources outside the product's advertising material.
No, I mean in others -- this is the question of ignobleness.

[Serotonin]

No, I mean in others -- this is the question of ignobleness.

Oh ok sorry. Yes, epistemelogically this is a can of worms. In marketing and politics there is a strange code where bias, or "ak-sen-chu-waiting the positive" is accepted by the people who receive their messages as part-and-parcel of their profession. Yet does each and every member of society accept this? It is easy to see in the case of, say, the association of a product with sex or body image, that this product will not necessarily increase your sex appeal, however the extent to which a viewer of an advertisment can tease apart their rational response from their emotional response, and if they can, the relative importance they bestow upon their responses. Some will resist, some will give in. Some are beyond help (even self-help) with their inability to resist persuasion. Free-market doctrine assumes everyone has the intellect to make a reasonable decision with how they spend their money. Of course in reality this is not the case. We can apply economic darwinism to this scenario, however the people don't die, they become bums on the streets and bump up the crime levels. This is the point I think where you have to stop deifying personal choice and implement temporary socialist measures. Otherwise the prosperity resulting from the reasonable choices that the more intelligent denizens make will be undermined by those (who are likely the victims of their own weakness to seduction... be it from advertising or other sources) who have dropped out of society, i.e. criminals.

So some people can see advertisements for what they are i.e. innocuous suggestion better than other people. My gripe is that marketing agents are aware of this; an inescapable part of their job is dealing with human psychology, its strengths and its frailties. Doesn't it follow that if you are working with human condition, that it is morally contentious to have their well-being as a secondary consideration? A doctor doesn't, a psychologist doesn't, a social worker doesn't, a teacher doesn't. Marketing seems to be the only vocation dealing in human nature where the code of "at the very least, do no harm" is violated.

[Hypnos]

[...] Free-market doctrine assumes everyone has the intellect to make a reasonable decision with how they spend their money. Of course in reality this is not the case. We can apply economic darwinism to this scenario, however the people don't die, they become bums on the streets and bump up the crime levels. This is the point I think where you have to stop deifying personal choice and implement temporary socialist measures. [...]
It's better to have education as a public good than a safety net for stupid behavior, so as not to reward stupidity :)


[...] Doesn't it follow that if you are working with human condition, that it is morally contentious to have their well-being as a secondary consideration? A doctor doesn't, a psychologist doesn't, a social worker doesn't, a teacher doesn't. Marketing seems to be the only vocation dealing in human nature where the code of "at the very least, do no harm" is violated.
I disagree. The professions you list have a stated purpose of helping people. Advertisers are more like lawyers -- advocates for a particular party.

[Conan]

I think cigarettes are a good example of the point Serotonin is trying to make.

[Hypnos]

I think cigarettes are a good example of the point Serotonin is trying to make.
And for mine as well.

[Conan]

And for mine as well.

True.

[Serotonin]

It's better to have education as a public good than a safety net for stupid behavior, so as not to reward stupidity :)

In theory, for sure :). It's a fine sieve, but it's still a sieve, not a bowl. But yes, the cigarettes example does help your point as well.


I disagree. The professions you list have a stated purpose of helping people. Advertisers are more like lawyers -- advocates for a particular party.

*ruminates*.....:lol:

I think we've come to the nub of our ideological differences. Having been raised in a family with a teacher for a father and a social worker for a mother... the ethos of "helping the public good" has been instilled in me beyond the point of appreciating profit-making as an end in itself as equally admirable. A bias which is potentially dangerous if I become too passionate about it, so I'll pull my horns in.

[Rajah]

Which school taught you about inductive logic?Look, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but it's frankly not all that relevant.

What I tried to say is that a so-called "elite" education is not a sure-fire ticket to a better job, or amazing networking opportunities, or anything like that. So before you sink $150K+ into an "elite" education, look at the comparable educations offered by less-expensive state institutions or even other private colleges with more accessible scholarship opportunities, etc. Don't be lured by the idea that "elite" educations equal anything more. It's just a name, and while that name can sometimes open doors, those doors can be opened in other ways.

[Hypnos]

Rajah:

So do you concede that attending an "elite" institution may be worthwhile to some folks? I would argue that it enhances (not guarantees) networking and job opportunities, and that there are other benefits as well.

[Pooja]

(sorry, I'm not rajah... but)

attending an elite institution is definately worthwile to some people, but only if their path to success entails impressing others with their namebrand institution.
BUT, if the namebrand is not neccisary, and you're looking for an intrinsically good college, than any place with a half-decent infrastructure will do. This is because, in the end, college is almost entirely a self-learning experience.

[Hypnos]

[...] This is because, in the end, college is almost entirely a self-learning experience.
I totally disagree. My greatest lessons from undergrad were directly due to my professors.

[Hustler]

Elite schools are better. I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Why is everyone around here so hard-headed?

[Claverhouse]

This is not a rally cry to ban marketing, but a personal opinion of mine that it is an ignoble profession.

Well said. But banning it would be good too.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[nihilist]

Elite schools are better. I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Why is everyone around here so hard-headed?

I love irony, especially when it's unbeknownst to the poster.

[coffeezombie]

Elite schools are better. I can't believe this discussion is still going on. Why is everyone around here so hard-headed?
Well, non-elite schools can be pretty good too if they involve a lot of personal attention from professors. A small private school might be superior to a large elite one in that sense.

[Rajah]

Rajah:

So do you concede that attending an "elite" institution may be worthwhile to some folks? I would argue that it enhances (not guarantees) networking and job opportunities, and that there are other benefits as well.*blink* Did I ever say that attending a so-called "elite" school is necessarily better or worse than obtaining an education from a "non-elite" school? My point is, and always has been, that comparable educations are likely available elsewhere. And no, I don't necessarily buy into the argument that simply attending an "elite" school enhances networking and job opportunities, or even provides additional opportunities. Typically, you can open the doors in other ways. If your elite education was worthwhile for you, great. My state-school undergrad and grad school, and "elite" law school have been equally worthwhile or worthless for me. I don't think you can come down and say with conviction that an "elite" education must be even one iota better than a state school.

If you want to say it all comes down to circumstances, fine. I'll concede it.

[Hypnos]

*blink* Did I ever say that attending a so-called "elite" school is necessarily better or worse than obtaining an education from a "non-elite" school? My point is, and always has been, that comparable educations are likely available elsewhere. [...]
By "some folks" I mean those who would derive extra benefit from attending a prestigious school, not those who by chance happen to be in a prestigious school that doesn't suck.


[...] And no, I don't necessarily buy into the argument that simply attending an "elite" school enhances networking and job opportunities, or even provides additional opportunities. Typically, you can open the doors in other ways.[...]
Such as? How many Goldman-Sachs recruiters work at an Ivy League school, compared to a non-descript state institution? If the same person who earns a 4.0 GPA at an Ivy league school earns a 4.0 GPA at the non-descript state school, whom will Goldman-Sachs hire?

If you're a strong student with ambitious career plans, attending an elite institution pays dividends. Whether or not it's worth the extra money depends.


[...] If your elite education was worthwhile for you, great. My state-school undergrad and grad school, and "elite" law school have been equally worthwhile or worthless for me. I don't think you can come down and say with conviction that an "elite" education must be even one iota better than a state school.
I can, if a student who is deciding will take advantage of the extra resources of the elite institution. Besides a higher-value diploma for recruiting: small class sizes that stimulate discussion, closely-supervised opportunities for research or independent work, picking the brains of the best possible minds, and being in a student community (living in dorms, collaborating on projects/activities, and socializing) defined by excellence.

I have enjoyed these benefits of an elite institution at both the undergrad and graduate levels (former private, the latter public).


If you want to say it all comes down to circumstances, fine. I'll concede it.
My point is that the relevant factors include not only career choice and financial constraints, but also the caliber of student.

I should add that academic prestige is the important thing; tuition just happens to be correlated with it. After that, I would rank institution culture (are you comfortable spending N years there?) and access to professors.

[Rajah]

By "some folks" I mean those who would derive extra benefit from attending a prestigious school, not those who by chance happen to be in a prestigious school that doesn't suck.Wait a minute. I never said my elite school sucked. Quite the opposite. I went to an awesome law school -- and an awesome undergrad institution.


Such as? How many Goldman-Sachs recruiters work at an Ivy League school, compared to a non-descript state institution? If the same person who earns a 4.0 GPA at an Ivy league school earns a 4.0 GPA at the non-descript state school, whom will Goldman-Sachs hire? If they had to pick one, probably the 4.0 at the elite school b/c elite schools simply don't give out 4.0s too often -- at least they don't at the law school level. I'll also bet Goldman-Sachs recruiters would be lured by the "prestige" of an elite education. I'll further wager that said recruiters would be interested in a state-school-educated student with a great background.


If you're a strong student with ambitious career plans, attending an elite institution pays dividends. Whether or not it's worth the extra money depends.Wow, you're assuming a lot about me. Erroneously. I was a very strong student. I suppose I had "ambitious career plans" (whatever those are). And attending an "elite" school simply does not necessarily pay dividends. It might. It might not. It's foolish to take on an insane amount of debt in the hope that it will. If you're a strong student anyway, you're strong enough to stand out at a state school.


I can, if a student who is deciding will take advantage of the extra resources of the elite institution. Besides a higher-value diploma for recruiting: small class sizes that stimulate discussion, closely-supervised opportunities for research or independent work, picking the brains of the best possible minds, and being in a student community (living in dorms, collaborating on projects/activities, and socializing) defined by excellence.You're assuming a state school necessarily lacks the resources of an "elite" school. Why? My state school was very heavily funded, with brilliant professors whose doors were open to me. I was an excellent student, so I took advantage of my school's honors program, lived in a dorm with other honors students, had smaller classes, etc. And I had the opportunity to work with some brilliant people at my state school. Similarly, I had the chance to work with brilliant people at my "elite" school. I don't know why you'd assume the best possible minds wouldn't be teaching at a state school -- these people are seeking professor positions in a field saturated with applicants, and in my experience, often take a position wherever it's available. Lucky me, many were pleased to take positions at my undergrad institution.


My point is that the relevant factors include not only career choice and financial constraints, but also the caliber of student.And again, I take offense at your implication.

[nihilist]

And again, I take offense at your implication.

I agree with Hypnos in that the caliber of students greatly enhances the experience of education. Your argument is limited to a significant degree by your own experience, as you were allegedly in the honors program of what would appear to be an excellent state school. But the fact of the matter is that there aren't many exemplary state schools and non-elites that can be regarded as extrinsically and intrinsically valuable in comparison.

Elite schools gravitate towards being an incubator for intellectual stimulation as a community. And, well, I don't need to spell out the intellectual nature, or lack thereof, of the student body from average universities.

[Hypnos]

Wait a minute. I never said my elite school sucked. Quite the opposite. I went to an awesome law school -- and an awesome undergrad institution.
This is how I understand your claim: given some "elite" institution with a certain degree of prestige, there exists a less prestigious school (more likely to be public, more likely to have lower tuition) where you can get just as good an education.

Read on for my disagreements ...


[...] I'll further wager that said recruiters would be interested in a state-school-educated student with a great background.
Maybe. What constitutes a great background? How many hoops would the student have to jump through to get the recruiters' attention? How do you convince them that you're a better hire than someone at a more prestigious institution who did almost as well as you academically?

I think it's easier for someone from a less prestigious school to get into a top-shelf grad program than to get a top-shelf job, because there are standardized tests (for what they're worth).


Wow, you're assuming a lot about me. Erroneously. I was a very strong student. I suppose I had "ambitious career plans" (whatever those are). [...]
I was using the rhetorical "you" -- some hypothetical student. Not _you_ specifically :)


[...] And attending an "elite" school simply does not necessarily pay dividends. It might. It might not. It's foolish to take on an insane amount of debt in the hope that it will. If you're a strong student anyway, you're strong enough to stand out at a state school.
My claim is that if you're going to be a standout out a non-elite school anyway, there's more for you at an elite school.


[...] You're assuming a state school necessarily lacks the resources of an "elite" school. Why? My state school was very heavily funded, with brilliant professors whose doors were open to me. I was an excellent student, so I took advantage of my school's honors program, lived in a dorm with other honors students, had smaller classes, etc. And I had the opportunity to work with some brilliant people at my state school. Similarly, I had the chance to work with brilliant people at my "elite" school. I don't know why you'd assume the best possible minds wouldn't be teaching at a state school -- these people are seeking professor positions in a field saturated with applicants, and in my experience, often take a position wherever it's available. Lucky me, many were pleased to take positions at my undergrad institution.

* First, let us distinguish elite/non-elite and private/public. Most elite institutions are private, though some are public. There are many public and private non-elite schools. However, it must be noted that:

- Elite public institutions are not _that_ much cheaper than their private competitors, and the students often have more inconveniences (having to live off-campus, bigger student body -> more bureaucracy, etc.).

- Elite private schools realize they must compete with other private schools and elite public schools, so are as generous as possible with financial aid. I myself have received considerable sums of aid.

* Honors is nice, but it doesn't compare to when the whole school could be honors elsewhere. Everywhere you turn something awesome -- creative, innovative, challenging, significant -- is happening. You learn from every interaction: playing intramural sports, at the dining hall, in clubs, etc.

* The best faculty go where there's a community of like-minded peers. I'm in one of the top of institutions in the world in my field (happens to be public), and still the variation in talent among the faculty is apparent. But this is grad school. In undergrad, I had the fortune of going to a school that was similarly prestigious in many fields -- it made every class fascinating and compelling.


And again, I take offense at your implication.
*shrug* I'm not trying to put you down, but I find you to be too dismissive of the opportunities afforded by an elite institution. If there's something in my view that's pejorative to you, it's that you might not have exploited the elite school you attended to its fullest extent.

[Hypnos]

I should add that the article in the first post shows that the jury is still out on cost-competitiveness of paying through the nose for tuition. However, this is interesting:


One virtue of Hoxby's work is her focus on what people really pay. Everyone knows the retail price of Penn is out of sight. But not everyone knows that three-quarters of its undergraduates get some kind of financial aid and nearly half get an outright grant (read: discount). At Penn, for example, undergraduate tuition and fees this fall are $39,634. But the university says the average undergraduate gets a discount of 25 percent. And that figure only takes account of scholarships from Penn or governmental sources. If you add in private grants and the value of low-interest loans, the average price would drop even further.

Hoxby understands this, which is why she compared students paying average 1997-98 tuition at a third-rank public college to those paying average tuition at a first-rank private college. Even adjusting for differences in student aptitude, the private school student would be expected to earn back the difference in costs more than 30 times over during the course of a working lifetime, far outstripping any possible investment returns on invested capital.

[jread]

I'm not going to an "elite" school but I am going to a very expensive private school: http://www.stedwards.edu

I've decided that for grad. school, though, I'm going to a cheaper public university that more people know about: http://www.txstate.edu

The private school has a great local reputation but will not do much for me outside of this area. The public school is a name that everyone knows.

[Hustler]

I love irony, especially when it's unbeknownst to the poster.

Yeah.

[Melody]

originally i posted how uncomfortable i felt just walking around berkeley

but my feelings are best summed up by

These people are *too* motivated. I'd rather just get the work done that I need to get done, do it well, and then relax....relax to think about something actually significant
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

[Hypnos]

originally i posted how uncomfortable i felt just walking around berkeley

but my feelings are best summed up by
...relax to think about something actually significant
Every school is different. UC Berkeley definitely has a go-getter feel, but then again every department is different.

[Rajah]

long argumentClearly I'm not dissuading you and you're not convincing me at all. We're at an impasse.

I do believe you're entirely too hung up on the idea that a supposedly "elite" school necessarily has smarter students, better resources, and a better curriculum. I do believe you're deluded by the name of these schools themselves, and that often the prestige of the name is more important to people than what the students actually learned. I have friends from Yale Law who failed the Texas bar and sailed through because Yale has a pass/fail system. Should I be impressed that they went to Yale? Not so much. Did they have some better education than I did? Apparently not.

And even though you insultaed me -- again -- you still wholly ignore my point that my more-prestigious law school had similar (perhaps worse) resources than my 40,000+ student undergrad institution. You assume it must be me. I'm not interested in pursuing this argument with you anymore.

[jread]

my 40,000+ student undergrad institution

UT Austin? I thought they had a great law school there as well.

[Rajah]

UT Austin? I thought they had a great law school there as well.Actually, I went to grad school there. Different undergrad.

[Hypnos]

Rajah,

It is certainly not my intention to insult you, but perhaps doing so coincidentally is unavoidable given the substance of our disagreement: my argument is that the best students are best served at an elite institution. If you disagree, specifically based on your experience, then one must conclude that you were not among the "best" students for whatever reason. *shrug*

Furthermore, I did not ignore your point about resources. I articulated precisely what extra resources are generally available at prestigious institutions over non-prestigious ones.

However, you did ignore my excerpt from the article you posted, about (ostensibly) the only dollar-for-dollar comparison between elite and non-elite schools showing elite schools to be quite cost-efficient over the long-term.

In any event, I hope you find me more stupid than mean.

[Rajah]

Rajah,

It is certainly not my intention to insult you, but perhaps doing so coincidentally is unavoidable given the substance of our disagreement: my argument is that the best students are best served at an elite institution. If you disagree, specifically based on your experience, then one must conclude that you were not among the "best" students for whatever reason. *shrug*Alternatively, one could conclude that your argument is fatally flawed. Conclude what you must.


Furthermore, I did not ignore your point about resources. I articulated precisely what extra resources are generally available at prestigious institutions over non-prestigious ones.*sigh* I don't agree. I think these "extra resources" are things you believe are available at an "elite" institution and not available at (for example) a large, well-funded public institution. You haven't shown that the other institutions lack these things.


However, you did ignore my excerpt from the article you posted, about (ostensibly) the only dollar-for-dollar comparison between elite and non-elite schools showing elite schools to be quite cost-efficient over the long-term.I did. Sorry. I'm sure attending an elite school could be more cost-efficient over the long term. Frankly, having worked in law firms alongside people from such venerable institutions as University of Texas and University of Houston, and earning the same salary, it would have been a hell of a lot more cost-efficient to sign up at a state school.


In any event, I hope you find me more stupid than mean.I typically find you neither. I do think you were out of line implying that I was a poor and lazy student.

[Hypnos]

*sigh* I don't agree. I think these "extra resources" are things you believe are available at an "elite" institution and not available at (for example) a large, well-funded public institution.
Again, let us be careful to distinguish the elite/non-elite and private/public axes. That said, yes, I do believe that elite schools have resources (mostly in the form of people, prestige and conveniences) generally unavailable at non-elite schools.


I did. Sorry. I'm sure attending an elite school could be more cost-efficient over the long term. Frankly, having worked in law firms alongside people from such venerable institutions as University of Texas and University of Houston, and earning the same salary, it would have been a hell of a lot more cost-efficient to sign up at a state school.
What's interesting about Hoxby's research is that the student accounts for 3/4 of the difference in post-graduation earnings, but that the remaining 1/4 is enough to make a elite schools a bargain (accounting for financial aid).


I typically find you neither. I do think you were out of line implying that I was a poor and lazy student.
Sometimes my arguments lead to tactless conclusions; however, I am compelled to make them. Character flaw?

[Hustler]

*sigh* I don't agree. I think these "extra resources" are things you believe are available at an "elite" institution and not available at (for example) a large, well-funded public institution. You haven't shown that the other institutions lack these things.

The main resource is the atmosphere of intellectualism you encounter at an elite school, which you do not find at a non-elite school (taking the public vs. private distinction out of the equation). This is created by the high caliber of student and professor one encounters at the elite institution. I guess Hypnos isn't sharing his personal information anymore, but he attended an elite school where the average IQ and academic ambition/orientation/interest of the student and faculty will not be matched by any non-elite school on the planet, even if you were to restrict the search to only the honors programs at said institutions. What is this worth? Maybe you dismiss it as not being worth much because of the reasons you've cited earlier in this thread (you can still find a circle or friends which fit the criteria of the average student at an elite school, etc.), but I do not, and I suspect Hypnos does not either. I found that being able to have impromptu discussions with smart, academically-oriented people (be they professors or other students) on just about any subject at just about any time of the day was invaluable to my intellectual growth. I am a more capable thinker today on account of it and, given the experiences I had in less-esteemed academic institutions, I am certain I would not have developed in the same way had I not attended an elite school, and my intuition allows me to surmise what some of the differences in my intellectual development would have been. All things considered, I like the way things turned out, so attending the elite school was definitely worth it for me.

I find your overly defensive stance on this matter puzzling, as though you're not even willing to consider that some people can extract extra value from an elite institution which more than makes up for the added expense, just because it was not the case for you. You're wrong! I am a counterexample to your theorem and, from the sound of it, so is Hypnos.

I am certain this ineffable quality of intellectual stimulation can be translated into a quantifiable dollar value but, how to go about that for purposes of analyzing the cost-effectiveness of elite academic institutions in a general sense is beyond my economical expertise. In the event that I participate in the spawning of offspring, however, I'm certain I'll be willing to spend the extra dime to send them to an elite school if that is what they want.

[Melody]

imo $$ is irrelevant. there exist such things as loans

i would be more worried about how my gpa would turn out at a l33t school, since it would be used as a criterion for entrance into a graduate thingie

...but actually, i would much rather be overchallenged than underchallenged

[s0978]

Sometimes my arguments lead to tactless conclusions; however, I am compelled to make them. Character flaw?Are you really asking?

yuk yuk :P

[Hypnos]

Are you really asking?

yuk yuk :P
Y'know, it's Valentine's Day ... :puppy:

[s0978]

Y'know, it's Valentine's Day ... :puppy:haha, okay, snarkiness retracted.

*licks hypnos instead*

[Hypnos]

haha, okay, snarkiness retracted.

*licks hypnos instead*
:whoop:

[nihilist]

The main resource is the atmosphere of intellectualism you encounter at an elite school, which you do not find at a non-elite school (taking the public vs. private distinction out of the equation). This is created by the high caliber of student and professor one encounters at the elite institution. I guess Hypnos isn't sharing his personal information anymore, but he attended an elite school where the average IQ and academic ambition/orientation/interest of the student and faculty will not be matched by any non-elite school on the planet, even if you were to restrict the search to only the honors programs at said institutions. What is this worth? Maybe you dismiss it as not being worth much because of the reasons you've cited earlier in this thread (you can still find a circle or friends which fit the criteria of the average student at an elite school, etc.), but I do not, and I suspect Hypnos does not either. I found that being able to have impromptu discussions with smart, academically-oriented people (be they professors or other students) on just about any subject at just about any time of the day was invaluable to my intellectual growth. I am a more capable thinker today on account of it and, given the experiences I had in less-esteemed academic institutions, I am certain I would not have developed in the same way had I not attended an elite school, and my intuition allows me to surmise what some of the differences in my intellectual development. All things considered, I like the way things turned out, so attending the elite school was definitely worth it for me.


The reference to the background of Hypnos is too extreme, but it's awfully simplistic and possibly grandiose to assume that students in elite schools engage in rapid, extemporaneous intellectual banter as if in some sort of postmodern, bohemian world of their own.

On the contrary, the process of acquiring an elite education is yet another reflection of the repulsive consumeristic culture that plagues this nation. Perhaps, you don't realize that money and ambition play a key role in going to ivy leagues in the first place. Where exactly does IQ fall into the equation, what with all the expensive SAT prep sessions? Parents are willing to fork over loads of money just so little Jenny can be accepted into Yale. Private counselors, tutors, alumni intervention, inflated recommendations...kids, usually from priveleged backgrounds, resort to anything just to be entitled to the status.

IIRC, Kerry, Gore, Bush Sr. and Jr. all went to ivy leagues. I don't think anyone here regards them as great minds.

[Hustler]

The reference to the background of Hypnos is too extreme, but it's awfully simplistic and possibly grandiose to assume that students in elite schools engage in rapid, extemporaneous intellectual banter as if in some sort of postmodern, bohemian world of their own.

Is it? Why is it? Why does my experience contradict this? Why demote discourse to banter and apply needless intended pejoratives such as 'postmodern' and 'bohemian?' What's your game, nihilist?


On the contrary, the process of acquiring an elite education is yet another reflection of the repulsive consumeristic culture that plagues this nation. Perhaps, you don't realize that money and ambition play a key role in going to ivy leagues in the first place. Where exactly does IQ fall into the equation, what with all the expensive SAT prep sessions? Parents are willing to fork over loads of money just so little Jenny can be accepted into Yale. Private counselors, tutors, alumni intervention, inflated recommendations...kids, usually from priveleged backgrounds, resort to anything just to be entitled to the status.

Great, another conspiracy theorist. SAT prep sessions and expert tutelage can only take one so far; the rest is up to the young academic to achieve. Besides which, who cares (some nihilist you are)? So what if money affords many of the would-be matriculates a leg up on the competition? Just because some classmate of mine came from the seed of a man earning eight figures and had more chances to improve himself academically than some kid from the ghetto did doesn't mean that my discussions with him on ancient Greek social practices were any less intellectually stimulating.


And IIRC, Kerry, Gore, Bush Sr. and Jr. all went to elite schools. I don't think anyone here regards them as great minds.

Exceptions which prove the rule.

[nihilist]

Great, another conspiracy theorist. SAT prep sessions and expert tutelage can only take one so far; the rest is up to the young academic to achieve. Besides which, who cares (some nihilist you are)?


Somehow, you just proved my point. To those who apply to elite schools, the end matters more than the means. Nobody cares on whether they're truly smart, just so as long as they can comfort their egos in the illusion of being entitled to the intellectual and sometimes materialistic stature. Like I said, it's another form of consumerism.




Just because some classmate of mine came from the seed of a man earning eight figures and had more chances to improve himself academically than some kid from the ghetto did doesn't mean that my discussions with him on ancient Greek social practices were any less intellectually stimulating.


Anyone can read a book to acquire knowledge and later regurgitate it. First of all, this doesn't qualify as being a profound intellectual. And secondly, one can discuss such topics in other venues just as well. You don't need to be in an elite school for that.


Exceptions which prove the rule.


Not quite. It seems strikingly coincidental that the people who have exploited their ivy league status on a grand scale are profoundly uninspiring in intellect. From this, I can only surmise that those who decide to wield their ivy league diplomas could just as well be insipid. Oh, and I forgot to add Dick Cheney to the list.

[Hustler]

That's exactly my point. To those who apply to elite schools, the end matters more than the means. Nobody cares on whether they're truly smart, just so as long as they can comfort their egos in the illusion of being entitled to the intellectual and sometimes materialistic stature. Like I said, it's another form of consumerism.

So then, nobody should go to school at all? That is the logical extension of this line of argument, isn't it? Any payment made for any service/good/etc. is just a form of consumerism. Hell, I guess you can't even buy books without being a consumer. Oh no!


Anyone can read a book to acquire knowledge and later regurgitate it. First of all, this doesn't qualify as being a profound intellectual. And secondly, one can discuss such topics in other venues just as well. You don't need to be in an elite school for that.

Your argument is seriously deteriorating. I could go bang on my neighbor's door and ask him his opinions on existentialism but, guess what, he's going to return my query with a blank look. The same response I would have gotten at my local university growing up. I could have done the same at the elite college I attended and stood a good chance of learning something interesting about existential philosophy which I did not already know. Maybe he was just regurgitating something he read, and maybe he wasn't, but at least he had something to offer me besides an apathetic shrug.

What alternative do you suggest for the ~17 year old aspiring intellectual? Go to a "sensibly priced" institution and then go to the corner salon after class to discuss Voltaire?


Not quite. It seems strikingly coincidental that the people who have exploited their ivy league status on a grand scale are profoundly uninspiring in intellect. Oh, and I forgot to add Dick Cheney to the list.

Yeah, and other boring ivy league alumni like I.M. Pei or E.E. Cummings or Quine, right?. What's strikingly coincidental is that what you consider the exploitation of ivy league status on a grand scale coincides with a life of mass-media consumerism. For one opposed to the supposed consumerist basis for the academic prestige of elite institutions, surely you can come up with a better argument against there being a superior intellectual atmosphere in elite institutions than reciting a list of well-known ivy leaguers who are decidedly unintellectual. Do you think ivy league schools are more full of George W. Bushes or I.M. Peis? If you do have an opinion on this, please state a basis for such.

[nihilist]

So then, nobody should go to school at all? That is the logical extension of this line of argument, isn't it? Any payment made for any service/good/etc. is just a form of consumerism. Hell, I guess you can't even buy books without being a consumer. Oh no!

Oh great, the relativist trump card! Consumerism is associated with equating personal happiness with material possessions or seeking validation through external means. I am not going to spell out where one draws the line in consumerism, as it's too obvious and also subjective. There should, however, be a clear sign of going beyond the realms of utilatarianism when someone's paying 30K+ for a single year of college. Besides, your willingness to justify these extravagances only serves to reflect your own pathetic need to be ensconced in such trifling labels.


Your argument is seriously deteriorating. I could go bang on my neighbor's door and ask him his opinions on existentialism but, guess what, he's going to return my query with a blank look. The same response I would have gotten at my local university growing up. I could have done the same at the elite college I attended and stood a good chance of learning something interesting about existential philosophy which I did not already know. Maybe he was just regurgitating something he read, and maybe he wasn't, but at least he had something to offer me besides an apathetic shrug.

There's no point in arguing this since it's circular logic. I already disagree with the premise that students are more inclined to have intellectual conversations amongst themselves in elite schools rather than non-elites. Engaging in philosophical conversations is all about finding the right people, and they can be in any university or as a matter of fact, anywhere in the world.




What alternative do you suggest for the ~17 year old aspiring intellectual? Go to a "sensibly priced" institution and then go to the corner salon after class to discuss Voltaire?

How about interacting with comparative literature or philosophy majors from roughly any university? Anyone willing to sacrifice their future financially for the sake of gaining timeless wisdom in the liberal arts/humanities has to be deeply passionate about the subject.

Overall, I must comment that I was dissappointed at the lack of insight in your last post as you resorted to needlessly invoking insignificant circumstances.



Yeah, and other boring ivy league alumni like I.M. Pei or E.E. Cummings or Quine, right?. What's strikingly coincidental is that what you consider the exploitation of ivy league status on a grand scale coincides with a life of mass-media consumerism. For one opposed to the supposed consumerist basis for the academic prestige of elite institutions, surely you can come up with a better argument against there being a superior intellectual atmosphere in elite institutions than reciting a list of well-known ivy leaguers who are decidedly unintellectual. Do you think ivy league schools are more full of George W. Bushes or I.M. Peis? If you do have an opinion on this, please state a basis for such.

The works of E.E. Cummings and I.M. Pei speak for themselves and don't require the superficial stamp of ivy leagues. I concede that their education may have helped them in enhancing their talent, but it was in their work from which brilliance had manifested. Hypothetically, would they have delivered the same if they had been educated somewhere else? Probably, more so for the poet than the architect.

[Zephyrus055]

Hustler,

SAT/ACT scores, good grades, community participation and family wealth are not reliable indicators of mental prowess.

I know many SJs who are getting good grades and participating in their communities, but I can't say that they are intellectually inclined. Infact, they are intellectually boring. These are also the people who are attending elite colleges.

A large number of the creative geniuses in the world, I would imagine, are living lives of depression and poverty.

In short, I think Ivy League colleges mostly attract SJs from prestigious families.

[Hypnos]

SAT/ACT scores, good grades, community participation and family wealth are not reliable indicators of mental prowess.

I know many SJs who are getting good grades and participating in their communities, but I can't say that they are intellectually inclined. Infact, they are intellectually boring. These are also the people who are attending elite colleges.
By any reasonable measure, "elite" institutions are grossly overrepresented among the alma maters of great thinkers (winners of various prizes [Nobel, Fields, Pulitzer], statesmen, famous writers and inventors, etc.).

Of course, Nihilist may interject that the same materialists who would want an elite diploma would also desire trifles like Nobel prizes and other signs of fame. :)

[Conan]

In short, I think Ivy League colleges mostly attract SJs from prestigious families.

I went to an ivy league level school in Duke, and while its possible they may attract SJs from prestigious families, and I found that 80-90% of students there were N's, the majority of those NT's (one reason I enjoyed college much more than high school). Regardless of preparation, I find that most S's would have difficulty not only scoring high enough (1400 minimum) on their SAT's but surviving in such an academically competitive and challenging environment (every subject is made more difficult than it is an attempt to produce a bell curve). Any S's that managed to get accepted into the school most likely were accepted to play on a varsity sports team, and are able to graduate because the school is hesitant to hand out the almighty "F", not to mention they provide all varsity athletes with free tutors.

[nihilist]

I went to an ivy league level school in Duke, and while its possible they may attract SJs from prestigious families, and I found that 80-90% of students there were N's, the majority of those NT's (one reason I enjoyed college much more than high school). Regardless of preparation, I find that most SJ's would have difficulty not only scoring high enough (1400 minimum) on their SAT's but surviving in such an academically competitive and challenging environment (every subject is made more difficult than it is an attempt to produce a bell curve). Any S's that managed to get accepted into the school most likely were accepted to play on a varsity sports team, and are able to graduate because the school is hesitant to hand out the almighty "F", not to mention they provide all varsity athletes with free tutors.

Sensors, especially SJs, are not quite "regarded" as having a mediocre intellect. The bourgeouis, European upper classses, and WASPs were predomininantly SJs, most of whom attended ivy league schools in Europe and America. Whilst the education overhaul in the 1960's may have changed this slightly, priveleged ivy leaguers are ostensibly the bourgeoisie of the current sociopolitical hierarchy.

Secondly, your distinction between SJ and NT is deeply flawed. Scoring well on the SAT or having a strong, generic academic background does not necessarily imply N nor is it a great measure of intelligence, especially considering many, (but not all) college subjects can be dealt with by diligently studying. I also find it hard to believe that expensive schools make life consideranly difficult for students on the account of the student paying so much to the institution. I am hazy on the details, but IIRC sometime ago, Princeton University was censured for gratuitous grade inflation.

[Conan]

Scoring well on the SAT or having a strong, generic academic background does not necessarily imply N nor is it a great measure of intelligence, especially considering many, (but not all) college subjects can be dealt with by diligently studying.

I agree you can get good grades in many subjects (especially in high school and middle to lower tier universities) without strong N. However, I would find it rare that in S would be achieve such a high score on the SAT's. I say I believe most students at my school are Ns not because I believe Ns are academically superior (though I do think they are) but because I look around at the people at my university and I see the N (as opposed to S) qualities in the vast majority of them, in sharp contrast to the majority people outside the university.


I also find it hard to believe that expensive schools make life consideranly difficult for students on the account of the student paying so much to the institution. I am hazy on the details, but IIRC sometime ago, Princeton University was censured for gratuitous grade inflation.

They try to make it harder because they cant hand out all A's. However, they often cannot make it difficult enough. What you have to understand is all the students at these schools are highly intelligent and motivated. They tend to be perfectionist and highly capable when it comes to their academic work, and while teacher's would prefer to hand out some C's and D's, it is difficult to do when the quality of work by nearly all of the students is excellent.

[nihilist]

I agree you can get good grades in many subjects without strong N. However, I would find it rare that in S would be achieve such a high score on the SAT's. I say I believe most students at my school are Ns not because I believe Ns are academically superior (though I do think they are) but because when I look around me at my university, I see the N qualities in nearly all the people around me, in sharp contrast to the majority people outside the university.

To do well on the SAT: be proficient at math; read and understand what's going on in the world....I don't see how this really correlates to N. Any ambitious person is capable of doing well on the SATs. SJs and NTs can both be equally adept at acquiring and understanding knowledge. The difference is that in pivotal situations, SJs maintain the status quo and NTs drive towards an innovative, radical approach.

Almost everyone here unanimously regards the current Bush administration as well as other governmental agencies as SJs. Yet, the government is run, or rather advised by economic and political advisors, most of whom have *doctorates from elite schools.

*edit: higher degrees (broadens the intellectual arena, but standards for admission and performance are relatively same)

[Conan]

Almost everyone here almost unanimously regards the current Bush administration as well as other governmental agencies as SJs. Yet, the government is run, or rather adivised by economic and political advisors, most of whom have doctorates from elite schools.



Look it up, the higher the degree, the greater the percentage of NTs. SJ's are certainly required in government, and probably compose the majority of it, as it is a bureacracy, however those holding PhDs from elite school (especially in the more academic fields) are most likely NT's, if you can think of some government officials who have a PhD from an elite institution and are not NT's, let me know, Id be quite interested. (I know Rice is an ENTJ and Greenspan's an INTJ), Rumsfeld and Cheney probably are most likely SJ however they do not hold PhDs from elite institutions.

[nihilist]

Google it, the higher the degree, the greater the percentage of NTs. SJ's are certainly required in government as it is a bureacracy, however those holding PhDs from elite school are most likely NT's, if you can think of some government officials who have a PhD from an elite institution and are not NT's, let me know, Id be quite interested. (I know Rice is an ENTJ and Greenspan's an INTJ), Rumsfeld and Cheney probably are most likely SJ however they do not hold PhDs from elite institutions.

Find the evidence yourself as I won't be an accomplice to any SJ activity. You can start by Bush's cabinet members.

[Conan]

Find the evidence yourself as I won't be an accomplice to any SJ activity. You can start by Bush's cabinet members.

Just out of curiosity, which elite institution denied you?

[nihilist]

none, I went to one.

[Hustler]

Oh great, the relativist trump card! Consumerism is associated with equating personal happiness with material possessions or seeking validation through external means. I am not going to spell out where one draws the line in consumerism, as it's too obvious and also subjective. There should, however, be a clear sign of going beyond the realms of utilatarianism when someone's paying 30K+ for a single year of college.

The obviousness of where to draw the so-called line in consumerism is, itself, subjective. Basically, you admit your whole argument is based on a subjective perception of when consumerist practices stop being utilitarian. In other words, you think elite schools are wholly consumerist because you think elite schools are wholly consumerist.


Besides, your willingness to justify these extravagances only serves to reflect your own pathetic need to be ensconced in such trifling labels.

Really? I need to be ensconced in trifling labels? Where did I go to school again? Is that label I've slapped on myself?


There's no point in arguing this since it's circular logic. I already disagree with the premise that students are more inclined to have intellectual conversations amongst themselves in elite schools rather than non-elites. Engaging in philosophical conversations is all about finding the right people, and they can be in any university or as a matter of fact, anywhere in the world.

There's no point in arguing because you haven't brought up a single valid point to back up your claims. You have uninformed opinions which you spout as fact. Students _are_ more inclined to have intellectual conversations amongst themselves in elite schools than in non-elite schools. That you think otherwise shows how ridiculous your line of argument really is. I'm just curious where you even got this notion?


How about interacting with comparative literature or philosophy majors from roughly any university? Anyone willing to sacrifice their future financially for the sake of gaining timeless wisdom in the liberal arts/humanities has to be deeply passionate about the subject.

Wow, imagine the person who not only sacrifices his financial future but also sets himself into even deeper debt to engage these disciplines at an elite school. By your own "logic," I guess I will find even greater intellectuals at elite schools. Right?


Overall, I must comment that I was dissappointed at the lack of insight in your last post as you resorted to needlessly invoking insignificant circumstances.

I did it as an illustrative analogy to you invoking the existence of unintellectual alumni of ivy league schools in order to make some point. I hope you get it now.


The works of E.E. Cummings and I.M. Pei speak for themselves and don't require the superficial stamp of ivy leagues. I concede that their education may have helped them in enhancing their talent, but it was in their work from which brilliance had manifested. Hypothetically, would they have delivered the same if they had been educated somewhere else? Probably, more so for the poet than the architect.

Maybe they would have developed the same and maybe not. Who are we to say? But, once again, you have missed the point. These are examples of people who could have been your fellow students if you had attended an elite school. These are the types of people who contribute to the intellectual atmosphere of the elite schools.

Please don't respond to this post unless you can actually give some compelling reason for thinking the way you do. Please explain why you think students and professors at non-elite institutions engage in as much intellectual discourse, spontaneous or otherwise, as students in elite schools. You have a reason for this opinion, right? Please explain why your opinion contradicts my experience. Please offer something in your argument besides throwing around labels like "consumerism" and then getting upset when they can just as easily be used against you because, in the end, they are wholly subjective and useless in analyzing what's being discussed here.

[Hustler]

I went to an ivy league level school in Duke, and while its possible they may attract SJs from prestigious families, and I found that 80-90% of students there were N's, the majority of those NT's (one reason I enjoyed college much more than high school). Regardless of preparation, I find that most S's would have difficulty not only scoring high enough (1400 minimum) on their SAT's but surviving in such an academically competitive and challenging environment (every subject is made more difficult than it is an attempt to produce a bell curve). Any S's that managed to get accepted into the school most likely were accepted to play on a varsity sports team, and are able to graduate because the school is hesitant to hand out the almighty "F", not to mention they provide all varsity athletes with free tutors.

1. 1400 is not the minimum SAT required to get into Duke (or any school, for that matter). Let's not get carried away.
2. I think saying 80%-90% of the people at elite schools are N is a bit of a stretch. I don't think you find a proportion of Ns that high outside an elite graduate program in something like theoretical physics. The truth is, we are outnumbered by Ss, and it is hard to wholly eliminate them from any group. I agree the proportion of Ns at elite schools is higher than in the general population, but any estimate more than 60% N seems dubious to me.

[Hustler]

none, I went to one.

Alright, just tell us straight up: is it better or worse than Duke?

[nihilist]

The obviousness of where to draw the so-called line in consumerism is, itself, subjective. Basically, you admit your whole argument is based on a subjective perception of when consumerist practices stop being utilitarian. In other words, you think elite schools are wholly consumerist because you think elite schools are wholly consumerist.


It's undoubtedly a subjective perception, but for all purposes of practicality, it's ludicrous to spend loads of money for a college education on the feeble assumption that it breeds intellectuals, which in itself is arguably an idealogical facade to hide the inner desire for self aggrandizement and superiority that so often prevails over human nature. If the intent is really to become smart or to learn, why not join a book club?



Really? I need to be ensconced in trifling labels? Where did I go to school again? Is that label I've slapped on myself?


The crux of your argument is based on on your experience that an elite school has defined the intellectual fiber of your being. It's rather pathetic on the how much you are so dependant on acceptance from a supposedly established crowd. And I certainly hope you don't resort to delusions of grandeur by comparing yourself to great poets and brilliant thinkers. This only further reinforces my point that most students who attend elite schools are no better off intellectually than the rest of the world. While I cannot be certain, it's unlikely that history will remember you. In the overall scheme of things, you're just as insignificant as the rest of us.



There's no point in arguing because you haven't brought up a single valid point to back up your claims. You have uninformed opinions which you spout as fact. Students _are_ more inclined to have intellectual conversations amongst themselves in elite schools than in non-elite schools. That you think otherwise shows how ridiculous your line of argument really is. I'm just curious where you even got this notion?

There's no point in repeating each other's claims, as that's what's being argued. You need to seriously develop line of reasoning as opposed to either repeating your premise or spewing out incendiary but completely pointless criticisms.




Wow, imagine the person who not only sacrifices his financial future but also sets himself into even deeper debt to engage these disciplines at an elite school. By your own "logic," I guess I will find even greater intellectuals at elite schools. Right?


Unsurprisingly, you missed my point. How do you determine if an intellectual, by that I mean someone interested in abstract concepts, is smarter in elite schools as opposed to state schools? In fact, I would imagine a lot of intellectuals renouncing the elite school route so as not to get caught up in the vortex of financial burdens. There's a semblance of wisdom in not being brainwashed into the elite establishment.



Please don't respond to this post unless you can actually give some compelling reason for thinking the way you do. Please explain why you think students and professors at non-elite institutions engage in as much intellectual discourse, spontaneous or otherwise, as students in elite schools.

I could just as well flip the question and ask you for a compelling reason as to why you think students and proffesors are inclined to engaged in more intellectual discourse in elite schools rather than non-elites. Are you still going to hide behind the limited perceptions of your own experience, like an SJ?



Please offer something in your argument besides throwing around labels like "consumerism" and then getting upset when they can just as easily be used against you because, in the end, they are wholly subjective and useless in analyzing what's being discussed here.

What makes you so sure that your position, which is based exclusively on experience, isn't also predominantly subjective?

[Zephyrus055]

I went to an ivy league level school in Duke, and while its possible they may attract SJs from prestigious families, and I found that 80-90% of students there were N's, the majority of those NT's (one reason I enjoyed college much more than high school). Regardless of preparation, I find that most S's would have difficulty not only scoring high enough (1400 minimum) on their SAT's but surviving in such an academically competitive and challenging environment (every subject is made more difficult than it is an attempt to produce a bell curve). Any S's that managed to get accepted into the school most likely were accepted to play on a varsity sports team, and are able to graduate because the school is hesitant to hand out the almighty "F", not to mention they provide all varsity athletes with free tutors.
I honestly doubt that the majority of those students were NTs - I don't trust your judgement there.

My experience is that NHS, the academic elite, and those who simply succeed the most in school are almost always SJs. Although, I did meet one very intelligent INTJ woman my junior year of high school, who was privileged with a wealthy family that afforded her with a life that allowed her to express her intelligence far beyond usual. Her ACTs were 34 and SATs 1580. It was great talking to her, and neither of us had a significant intellectual advantage over the other. She was challenging, but not overwhelming.

Anyway, this INTJ did go to an Ivy League school and I suspect that she is doing outstanding there.

There is one ESFJ I know who admires me for my mind, yet has straight As and a 28 composite ACT (they don't care about SAT in the midwest). She thinks I'm some genius who wasted his potential, haha. This seems to ring true of many NTs actually. It seems that many NTs, by the time they exit high school, are depressed and academically unproductive.

With evidence of an almost exclusive SJ academic elite (many of who went to elite colleges) that I have experienced at my high school, college, and in many other observed institutions, I infer that Ivy League colleges probably attract a majority of hard working and intelligent SJs, many of whom come from wealthy families.

Now, to explain the correlation between elite colleges and prolific NT intellectuals, I also infer that those NTs who entered elite colleges and actualized their potential were also NTs who were mentally prepared and probably were able to afford a contemplative life because they came from wealthy families as well. Yes, I think that Ivy League colleges attract a wealth of excellent NTs, but I doubt that SJs don't make up the majority of the school's population or that Ivy League schools are infested with geniuses.

I remember reading that Bertrand Russell, before he entered Cambridge University (one of the best in the UK), he was told that he would enjoy an intellectual life conversing with many geniuses at college. Russell, however, was disappointed that he found no ingenius students who he could converse with intellectually at Cambridge University until his second year. This further suggests that elite universities do not necessary carry a majority population of the best and brightest, but educate most of the best and brightest who can afford a contemplative life (as Russell did, being from a very respectable family).

Anyway, I must say that there is generally a large intellectual difference between a NT who could afford a contemplative life and one who could not. For those who couldn't, I can tell that there is great potential in them that simply couldn't actualize itself. For those who could, well, they often have the luxury of reaching toward the stars.

[ptGatsby]

1400 is not the minimum SAT required to get into Duke (or any school, for that matter). Let's not get carried away.


Its pretty close. While you will find those that went with less, they went due to connections, minority requirements or other extenuating circumstances. The general admission level is very close to 1400.

For official numbers (aggregate), you can find them here;

https://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2009profile.asp

For more commentary on it, you can google, or read below;

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-276.html

[Hustler]

Its pretty close. While you will find those that went with less, they went due to connections, minority requirements or other extenuating circumstances. The general admission level is very close to 1400.

According to the sparknotes.com website, the average SAT score at Duke is 1408. Unless you wish to convince me that there is a 16 point range of SAT scores there running from 1400 to 1416, you're not going to convince me that the minimum required SAT to get into Duke is 1400. That was Esteban's wording.

[Hustler]

I could just as well flip the question and ask you for a compelling reason as to why you think students and proffesors are inclined to engaged in more intellectual discourse in elite schools rather than non-elites. Are you still going to hide behind the limited perceptions of your own experience, like an SJ?

Or you could just answer the question. You've failed to do that in all of your rambling nonsense so far. Since you failed to live up to my simple request in your latest post of actually giving some reasons for your beliefs, I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of it. You can continue to launch limp personal attacks at me and make irrelevant analogies if you want, but I'm just going to let you know that isn't going to help you make a point either. Can you at least answer this one question? Why do you think there is as much intellectual discourse taking place at non-elite schools as there is at elite schools? Surely you have a reason to think the way that you do. And, going beyond that, do you think there are any schools which would have a stronger intellectual atmosphere than other schools? Which would those be, if not the elite schools? Is price the only criteria one should use in evaluating a school?

[nihilist]

Can you at least answer this one question? Why do you think there is as much intellectual discourse taking place at non-elite schools as there is at elite schools? Surely you have a reason to think the way that you do.

Refer to my last few posts, and you'll figure it out although I have my doubts based on your apparent weak N. I don't think elite or non elite schools necessarily generate intellectual discourse per se. It's all about finding the right person, and my stance on that issue is that they can be found anywhere and do not neccessarily have to be denizens of elite schools, not enough so to be categorized with such a stereotype. I believe I already mentioned this before. Is repetition your natural mode of learning?



And, going beyond that, do you think there are any schools which would have a stronger intellectual atmosphere than other schools? Which would those be, if not the elite schools? Is price the only criteria one should use in evaluating a school?

I also alluded to this, if only you had the capacity to make a generalization. If you're so interested in sustaining an intellectual atmosphere, find a structured albeit cost-efficient environment like a book club. For such groups, you will have to assume that their participants are smart and intellectually curious, but at least you're not paying extravagant sums of money for that assumption. And of course, hanging out with like-minded friends is another option.

That said, I am also liberating myself out of this exceedingly mundane altercation.

[ptGatsby]

According to the sparknotes.com website, the average SAT score at Duke is 1408. Unless you wish to convince me that there is a 16 point range of SAT scores there running from 1400 to 1416, you're not going to convince me that the minimum required SAT to get into Duke is 1400. That was Esteban's wording.


I don't care if I convince you. Those are the numbers Duke uses. You can interpret them as you want. I wasn't defending Esteban, I was correcting you. 1400 is below the 'target' by a significant amount. People do get in with less (~25%), but that has nothing to do with admission rates of those under 1400. Duke has no 'minimum', except that your chances of getting in are minute...

However, since the information appears to be in doubt... let me explain their system.

We do not have a minimum required score for either the SAT or the ACT since we consider many factors in our admissions process. Also, we do not report an average SAT or ACT score. Rather, we report the middle 50 percent range of our admitted students. This means that 25 percent of the students we admit score higher than the upper end of the range, and 25 percent score below the lower end of the range. To see the profile of the current first-year class, click here.


Therefore, the class of 2009 would fall into this demographic (Arts / Sciences)

25% would score lower than 690/690 Verbal, 25% would score higher than 770/770
25% would score lower than 690/740 math, 25% would score higher than 780/800
25% would score lower than 680/780 Writing, 25% would score higher than 680/770.

Aggregate Sat-I would be;

25% would score lower than 1380/1430, 25% would score higher than 1550/1570.

Average admission score would be~ (topping out at 1600 may reduce this);

Arts - 1465
Sciences - 1500


So, yes, you can get in if you are under 1400. You just have less than a 1/4 chance... wait, correct that... a really really low chance.

Oh, even more data for you;

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/02/recordapplications.html

So that's 19,282 applications for 1640 spots... except the bottom 25% would get only 410 spots... so, what's that... 18,000 people looking for 410 spots? So, about a 3% chance, if you do less than 1400 spots? Or something like that.

Well, your definition of 'minimum' might be different than mine, but that's pretty 'minimal' all around.

-

Anyway...

Yah, even if they have lower requirements now, 1400 is a reasonable assesment going forward.

[Conan]

As gatsby said , there is no mimimum. One of my sisters (ENFP) got in with a little over a 1200, however she was also an all-state field hockey player, all regional tennis, regional oratorical winner, and president of her class, not to mention having an assload of other extracurriculars. She is also a legacy because of myself. And she claims to have the lowest score of anyone she knows at Duke.

Something to keep in mind about Duke's SAT averages. It is a Division I athletic school, so numerous students with significantly lower scores are admitted for athletic reasons which do lower the total average. So unless you plan on playing a varsity sport (or like gatsby said, have legacy or minority status) you should probably aim for at least a 1400.

As to 80%-90% being Ns, it probably was an exaggeration. However, not that much of one. I still firmly believe that the percentage of students there are overwhelmingly Ns. Another thing I look at. In my high school about 2-4 students per year get into ivy league level schools. During my time at that high school, every single one of these students has been an N despite the majority of the school population being composed, by far, of Ss.

Also, note that I have made the emphasis at an undergrad instutions on Ns not NTs. My other sister who is at Duke now is an NF (INFP) and actually scored higher than myself on the SAT's not to mention got much better grades. I would say the majority of girls at Duke are NFs (as opposed to NTs) and tend to gravitate towards the humanities (ie english, psychology) while there are much fewer of them in the hard sciences, math, and engineering departments.

[Mr. Beef]

I'd say that extraciriculars are probably the biggest thing. It's not about your academics as much as it is about you, which is why most schools count GPA SATs and personal statements about equally. My lazy ISTP brother scored a 1550 and got a 2.0 GPA in high school and had few extraciriculars other than him being a mechanical whizz and building a car that runs off of canola oil and only managed to go to Cal Poly for undergrad (mainly because of his mechanical abilities, not his SATs). I followed kind of the same path, with roughly the same SAT score (though at age 16, which might have made a difference in how I was analyzed) BUT moderately high GPA and a few more extraciriculars. I got into UCLA and was rejected by Berkeley and Caltech (kind of) because Berkeley and Caltech care more about GPA and extraciriculars than SAT scores. So it really depends on where you go.

As for mbti, I specifically remember taking mbti in 10th grade health class (interestingly, i think I was ISTP, while now i'm a strong N...i think N develops more as you age), and one of the valedictorians scored ISTP. As for the other 9, I know the smartest kid in the school who left to go to harvard junior year was ENTP, followed by the 2nd and 3rd who were both INTJs, one of which went to Caltech the other Berkeley. There were probably like 4 xNFxs thrown in there too (all the girls), maybe one ESxJ (we went by unweighted GPA), and maybe a few more INTJs followed by like....1 INTP (Not me). Surprisingly, there were a few really smart kids with bad GPAs in my class, who I'm guessing were probably xNTPs. The class that graduated prior to mine had even more INTP slackers. This one kid got a perfect 800 math score and 600+ verbal, got a 5 on AP calc. and physics cold turkey and failed out of chico state the next year. He now works at bestbuy :) . The other one was a kid who could reproduce almost any picture after seeing it for a few minutes and i'm not even going to say that he got perfects 800s and 5s (I just did) on everything because that woulden't even begin to do him justice. He ended up going to cal poly, playing world of warcraft and failing out in two quarters...now he has no job and sits at home watching television all day.


I guess what I was trying to say before i went off topic is that some colleges care more about some less about SATs among other things. However, you should look at the range of SAT scores to the school you are applying as that is obviously a good indication of what you should probably have to get in. In Duke's case, there's no minimum but it's advised that you probably scored at least 1400 to have a good shot.

[Hustler]

Refer to my last few posts, and you'll figure it out although I have my doubts based on your apparent weak N.

Personal attack.


I don't think elite or non elite schools necessarily generate intellectual discourse per se.

Question dodging.


It's all about finding the right person, and my stance on that issue is that they can be found anywhere and do not neccessarily have to be denizens of elite schools, not enough so to be categorized with such a stereotype.

Question dodging + subjective jibber-jabber.


I believe I already mentioned this before. Is repetition your natural mode of learning?

Personal attack.


I also alluded to this, if only you had the capacity to make a generalization.

Personal attack.


If you're so interested in sustaining an intellectual atmosphere, find a structured albeit cost-efficient environment like a book club.

Irrelevant aside/fantasyland nonsense.


For such groups, you will have to assume that their participants are smart and intellectually curious, but at least you're not paying extravagant sums of money for that assumption.

Baseless assumption.


And of course, hanging out with like-minded friends is another option.

Irrelevant aside. By the way, I made some friends at an elite school.


That said, I am also liberating myself out of this exceedingly mundane altercation.

Thinly veiled personal attack and admission of inability to answer my simple question. I guess I'm never going to get anything of substance out of you. But, then again, you are a nihilist, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[Hustler]

I don't care if I convince you. Those are the numbers Duke uses. You can interpret them as you want. I wasn't defending Esteban, I was correcting you. 1400 is below the 'target' by a significant amount. People do get in with less (~25%), but that has nothing to do with admission rates of those under 1400. Duke has no 'minimum', except that your chances of getting in are minute...

You're not going to convince me because you're wrong. Esteban said "1400 minimum" and I said that's not true. I don't really care about your interpretation of the data (I'm sure it's spot on!), I just wanted to point out that no college/university has a 1400 minimum required SAT for attendance (this is, of course, possibly no longer the case with the 2400 point possible score now or whatever), not even the mighty Duke.

[nihilist]

Baseless assumption.


It didn't surprise me that instead of presenting substantial arguments, speculative or otherwise, you would churn out terse and pointless comments.

Your evaluation of the assumption is logically inconsistent with your own argument. If your thesis is that there's more intellectual activity in a certain domain, then you're inherently making that assumption that the inhabitants of that particular domain are in some way, more mentally adept. Otherwise, you're merely asserting an opinion and making no effort to validate it with logic.


Irrelevant aside/fantasyland nonsense

Fantasyland nonsense???

Did you learn to utilize elementary school rhetoric from an elite institution?

[bergenski]

First of all, in referencing this thread, I don't understand why you have to devolve your debate into dismiissal of other's assertions and rude comments instead of keeping it on the level of discourse. It seems to weaken the force of your assertions and makes it seem like you can't really argue your position based on intellectual reason, in my opinion...(especially when you resort to using smarmy comments...)

Anyway, there is a severe externalization taking place here regarding which type of institution would be better, in my point of view. Primarily, the decision should center on what the student is looking to get out of the experience and how it would affect his or her life down the road. It is simply impossible to deny that so-called "elite" schools (the term just one of countless generalizations that have inhabited this thread) don't offer a select and well-funded environment in which to draw upon resources, peers of intellectual capability, and an accomplished faculty.

Is it the only route in which to accomplish academic and career-related goals? I certainly don't think so. But Rajah did all a disservice by beginning this thread with an either/or assertion as to the worth of an elite education simply based on her own experience. There was also the generalization that elite schools are simply an environment to foster abject consumerism, and while I think many would say it has some role to play, to dismiss elite instututions as being *about* that would seem to be a bit limiting in its scope.

Again, I would posit that it determines what the individual is looking to accomplish and get out of the education and how it can help with his or her life down the road based on internal hopes and interests. If the field they are studying doesn't overall pay well, financial resources are limited, location is near home, departmental facilities would be better,"networking" isn't as important, etc., perhaps a less expensive non-elite school is appropriate.

Still, I do believe there is unparalleled experience to be gained at elite schools, though I think they have to be consciously taken advantage of and leveraged in one's life in a self-directed and intelligent manner. The environment, resources, and professorial access (professors who, even if they are not excellent teachers, still provide for office hours during which one may be able to draw upon their intelligence and expertise) offer a person a developed, select environment in which they can be exposed to a variety of refined resources and where one can be forced to be intellectually rigorous, which can have strong implications on ability in the real world. There is more likely to be people there with important connections and, yes, the top companies do recruit there and there is wider recognition in the world of work...

To dismiss these advantages I feel would be erroneous, though certainly the financial investment has to be carefully considered within future considerations. I really think this is much more of an internal consideration instead of an external one as this thread implies.

Anyway, as this whole discussion has been rife with gross generalizations I will generalize and say I would much prefer to go to an elite school than a non-elite one as I feel it is just a much better experience (and I did...though I will be the first to admit I did not take advantage of it...)

[Hustler]

It didn't surprise me that instead of presenting substantial arguments, speculative or otherwise, you would churn out terse and pointless comments.

Personal attack.


Your evaluation of the assumption is logically inconsistent with your own argument. If your thesis is that there's more intellectual activity in a certain domain, then you're inherently making that assumption that the inhabitants of that particular domain are in some way, more mentally adept. Otherwise, you're merely asserting an opinion and making no effort to validate it with logic.

Holy shit. You made an argument...a point even. Yes, I am making the assumption that the inhabitants of the domain in question (elite schools) are more intellectually adept. The schools attract superior professors (even if their reasons are consumerist, they are still superior) and said professors create interesting, dynamic departments where intellectualism among the students is fostered and grows. This, in turn, attracts further academically-minded students and continues to build on itself. This, in turn, makes the school selective about who else can attend. Yes, there are still economic forces at work which go into determining who gets in (and not just because of tuition, but because of the greater challenge being competitive in school presents to the poor in general, for so many reasons), but at elite schools, the general trend is still that bright, motivated, academically-minded people are the ones who end up there.

You, of course, don't believe this. That's fine, but I'm still 100% certain you're wrong. My experience confirms my intuition on this as well. I spent ~7 years in higher education (4 in elite and 3 in non-elite), and while a substantial bias was present for all of those years (me), the difference I experienced in intellectualism was so immense, I have conclude that I have not been the victim of some strange experiential variance over the course of thousands of social interactions and shared thoughts during my tenure in academia.


Did you learn to how to utilize elementary school rhetoric from an elite institution?

Personal attack.

But, wait, I'll give this one a response...

I learned it from reading your posts! So, since you went to an elite school, maybe I did learn it from an elite institution indirectly. Two can play this dipshit game. Face it, virtually all of the so-called arguments you have made are stupid and irrelevant. Join a book club? Great idea for an INTP; that's going to happen. Oh, and by the way, why not join an even better book club at an elite institution! George W. Bush and many of his cronies went to an Ivy league school so therefore they are consumerist and not academic? Way to go, pick a few examples to try and prove a general point and then turn around an accuse me of being the one leaning on S logic.

As far as I can tell, you have no real basis for your argument. You're happy to throw out terms like "consumerist" and "self-aggrandizement," but these are just labels with no substance to back them up. Empty ideas. Besides which, not everyone is a nihilist; these very concepts can serve to promote intellectualism. Think about it.

Whatever the case, I like your style of argument.

[Misazeno]

I think elite schools are good to exploit as something to be snooty about.

"How dare you insult me, do you know who I am? I am Octavian Laruso the 4th. I went to Harvard, and Yale... pompos old wind bag..."

...you get my point

[Rajah]

But Rajah did all a disservice by beginning this thread with an either/or assertion as to the worth of an elite education simply based on her own experience.Oh please.

My whole goal in starting this thread was to 1) post an article, and 2) indicate that there are alternatives. My point was to say, hey, don't get hung up on a brand name school just because it's a brand name school. There are other considerations, and fuck it, it's just sometimes worth saving your money. If I had a choice, I'd gratefully return my degree and get my money back. I believe that my earning potential would be less dollarwise, but that I'd end up netting far more money when my student loan payments are removed from the equation.

We have Hypnos and Hustler debating on one side, and me on the other. Hustler is puzzled I'm sticking to my viewpoint. Ironically, Hustler is defending his position equally vociferously. I'm not puzzled by their position; I simply think it's very narrow. I doubt either will be surprised I'm saying that.

[Rajah]

Yes, I am making the assumption that the inhabitants of the domain in question (elite schools) are more intellectually adept.How do you respond regarding cases like me, a product of both the elite and non-elite schools? One of the following must be true:

(1) I am a smart girl who happened to attend a non-elite school. Therefore this supports the position that there are very intellectually adept students at non-elite schools.

(2) I am a dumbass who somehow got into an elite school. Therefore, elite schools have dumbass students too.

(3) I was intellectually adept when I attended my elite school, but a dumbass while attending my non-elite school. The school therefore makes the person bright or dumb.

If #1 or #2 is correct, surely it starts to break down your argument that bright students gravitate towards elite schools and non-elite schools are devoid of those students. I think what also breaks down your argument is that very bright, but less affluent, kids attend state institutions simply to save money. That is why I went to my state school -- it was free. There are many, many others in this boat. Surely a bright guy like you could conceive of how to network with these bright students and take advantage of the resources there.

Argument # 3 is clearly ridiculous.

[Hypnos]

How do you respond regarding cases like me, a product of both the elite and non-elite schools? One of the following must be true:

(1) I am a smart girl who happened to attend a non-elite school. Therefore this supports the position that there are very intellectually adept students at non-elite schools.

(2) I am a dumbass who somehow got into an elite school. Therefore, elite schools have dumbass students too.
It's simply a matter of concentrating smart folks, both among students and faculty. Honors programs are nice, but they can't match the intellectual environment of an elite school chock-full of people who would be honors or named professors elsewhere.

Of course there are dumbasses at elite schools and brilliant students at non-elite schools (private or public in either case), but these exceptions don't make the atmosphere.

These seem to be the central issues:

* Does concentrating people who have good high school GPAs, high SATs and interesting essays actually create an enriching environment?

* How useful is an "enriching environment" in one's education?

* Is it worth the money? Factors:
- base tuition
- financial aid/family circumstances
- personal goals
- future networking/access to optimum job market

My answers are usually, absolutely, usually.

[Hustler]

How do you respond regarding cases like me, a product of both the elite and non-elite schools? One of the following must be true:

(1) I am a smart girl who happened to attend a non-elite school. Therefore this supports the position that there are very intellectually adept students at non-elite schools.

(2) I am a dumbass who somehow got into an elite school. Therefore, elite schools have dumbass students too.

(3) I was intellectually adept when I attended my elite school, but a dumbass while attending my non-elite school. The school therefore makes the person bright or dumb.

The real answer is:

(4) You are statistically insignificant. I think this has been explained to you already in this thread, so I'm not going to go into it again. The point is that for every set of students size N sampled from an elite school, there will be n intellectuals and for every set of students size N sampled from a non-elite schools, there will be m intellectuals. I contend that n > m and, following from this inequality and the many things associated with it/reasons for it, the elite school is more intellectually rewarding for the bright student.

[Hustler]

I'm not puzzled by their position; I simply think it's very narrow. I doubt either will be surprised I'm saying that.

That's fine, but narrow != wrong.

[nihilist]

The real answer is:

I contend that n > m and, following from this inequality and the many things associated with it/reasons for it, the elite school is more intellectually rewarding for the bright student.

It's a sound argument except for the fact that you accept everything at face value. How can you be so certain in the assumption that more supposedly accepted bright students foster an intellectual atmosphere? (quantity over quality)

Under the circumstances, I would surmise that students willing to bear such financial burdens are more interested in securing competetive positions in the job market rather than spontaneously engaging in intellectual discourse. Needless to say, you'll dismiss my speculation as subjective nonsense while somehow being single-mindedly convinced that your own argument is beyond the realm of subjectivity.

It's amazing for a group that's so inclined to retain individuality, some not only desire to conform to the system but justify it from a collective standpoint.

[ptGatsby]

It's amazing for a group that's so inclined to retain individuality, some not only desire to conform to the system but justify it from a collective standpoint.


I think the error here is assigning attributes to a self-defined group that may or may not be accurately defined... both in terms of self-assessment and errors in the model.

Not to mention that people, in general, will change their view on something based upon the individual cost to themselves; to make their decisions correct regardless of data or contrary opinions.

[bergenski]

Anyway, there are a lot of variables to consider when deciding whether it is worth it to go to an elite school. The topic introduced seems to center around money. And, yes, if you don't expect to "get out" what you invest in an elite education, however you may define that, then it doesn't pay to spend all of that money. But, generally speaking, as seems to be much of the case here, I think it is worth the cost of an elite school for the refined experience, which I think can have hard-to-define impacts on a person's life...not the least of which introduces you to a more rarefied environment that can have a ripple effect on your life and that you simply cannot get at a lot of lesser caliber schools. That's why I think it is not right for Rajah to say "save your money" when that is taking a simplistic approach to whether an elite education is worth it.

[nihilist]

I think the error here is assigning attributes to a self-defined group that may or may not be accurately defined... both in terms of self-assessment and errors in the model.


No kidding! That's the inherent cost of making generalizations on top of even more generalizations that essentially constitute a system that purports to categorize by temperament.

It's like stating the obvious in accusing me of making gross generalizations; Suffice it to say, so are others.

[ptGatsby]

It's like stating the obvious in accusing me of making gross generalizations; Suffice it to say, so are others.


I love that line. I don't know why, but I do... But I totally agree. This is a personal decision - make a rational choice and do with it. I wish I had, instead of following through on my parents/etc wishes.


The whole education thing is a personal decision. Financially, it doesn't make a lot of sense to go to an Ivy school... if you care about the environment, the schmoozing and you want to work your way up through connections... well, then pay for it. You can, if you focus, make it worthwhile. The average person does not.


I personally stand firmly in the 'not worth it camp' because I now see life in terms of the cost of things; I'm happy going to http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html rather than class (which I hated when I tried it)... If I want to take a few courses on something specific, I'll take a trade/certification class (or more) like https://www.csi.ca/student/en_ca/index.jsp , which I've done. Its practical, marketable and politically effective. If I can't find what I want, I'll buy the textbooks... maybe even sign up for http://det.ubc.ca/detsite/courseofferings/coursecatalogue.html + http://det.ubc.ca/detsite/courseofferings/onlinecourses.html if I want the structured knowledge and maybe the ability to follow it up in class/labs.

Overall though? I earn more and have a higher net worth than most of my friends, with one notable exception, all of which are spread out across disciplines, level of education and current jobs. It all depends on what you value... They want families, white picket fences. I don’t…


Again - It is a personal thing. I'm market-friendly, not everyone is. I couldn't stand the intellectual environments of school, which many people do. I couldn't deal with having to pay so much for what I considered a waste of time. I moved on and knew I would do fine... My family respected my wishes, in the end. It just worked for me.

To me, money is freedom; freedom to be able to leave my job and explore life, to travel, to do more research/reading/etc, to work on my projects. Paying for schooling is nothing more than a loss of freedom... And I couldn't see it any other way. So I dropped it and moved on.

My only regret is that I tried something I knew wasn't for me.

[Melody]

u should let me borrow like $500 man

that mit 'opencourseware' thing is awesome. thx much

[Hustler]

It's a sound argument except for the fact that you accept everything at face value. How can you be so certain in the assumption that more supposedly accepted bright students foster an intellectual atmosphere? (quantity over quality)

I guess this just seems self-evident to me. The presence of more smart people makes for a more intellectual atmosphere. Aren't intellectuals just that? Smart people? Sure, they are a subset of smart people in that they are smart and prize certain types of thinking, but they're still all smart people. To me, you questioning this is analogous to someone questioning why I should accept at face value the assumption that more Spanish is spoken in Mexico than Canada because Mexico has more Spanish-speaking people.


Under the circumstances, I would surmise that students willing to bear such financial burdens are more interested in securing competetive positions in the job market rather than spontaneously engaging in intellectual discourse. Needless to say, you'll dismiss my speculation as subjective nonsense when I am only trying examine the motivations behind such actions.

If this were true, why would the elite school I attended produce a higher rate of graduates in subjects like classics, linguistics, history, literature, philosophy and other decidedly finacially-unrewarding areas than the non-elite schools I attended? Hell, you couldn't even be a classics major at the non-elite schools I attended. But, you could major in criminal justice, food and beverage management or even fire safety engineering technology (is there a greater intellectual breeding ground known to man?) if you wanted. The philosophy department at the elite school I attended has more professors than the philosophy departments at either of the non-elite schools, depsite both of the latter having larger student populations by a wide margin. Granted, my elite school's most popular major is biology, but at least that isn't as unintellectual as the most popular majors of the two non-elite schools I attended, marketing and finance.

Of course, these are three schools out of thousands, and it could be I attended anomalous schools. It would be nice to see data of graduates listed by major from various schools to see whose intuition is right about this matter, but I don't know where to find such information.


It's amazing for a group that's so inclined to retain individuality, some not only desire to conform to the system but justify it from a collective standpoint.

I fail to see how having a rational basis for thinking n > m (as per my previous post) has anything to do with conforming to a system. Unless, of course, you're talking about the system of inductive logic.

[ptGatsby]

u should let me borrow like $500 man


Shall we discuss interest rates then? ;)



that mit 'opencourseware' thing is awesome. thx much


My pleasure - there are a couple of other universities that are out there that are selling actual 'intelligence'/learning... open source universities, who would of thought! Some really good stuff out there, if you search around.

Personally, I picked up ~5-6 yr old textbooks at the used bookstore - maybe 20(?) odd textbooks, for well under $100CDN. They would of cost over 2000 new (*easy*). Yah, a bit out of date, but some stuff only changes so much. They were every bit as good as the textbooks I paid for my classes...

With university, you are buying a degree. Nowadays, you can find study groups, you can find speciality boards and you can find the information for meager costs. And its getting better, from lectures to textbooks to coursework.

[floyd]

i wonder whether the first post is just an example of some people's tendency to want to volunteer they went to an elite school in whatever context they can most naturally package it. sort of like how some people will occassinally complain about how hard it is being beautiful (the subtext being - "hi world, i'm beautiful, look at me"). especially, since the more valid subject in the first post seems to be whether one should spend three years of one's life (+ however much/little money) in law school if you don't end up being a lawyer. i think going to a non elite law school and not ending up as a lawyer is about as potentially wasteful so why focus on the 'elite' context unless you are just driven (consciously or subsconsciously) to tell people that you went to an elite school.

i also can't help but be amused at anyone who talks about the merits of networking. it's the epitome of identifying yourself as a cog in the machine and, worse yet, being proud of it. are cogs with gold stars really more impressive the cogs with silver stars or cogs with no stars?

if going to a certain school is fun, easy, makes your life better, it makes sense to me. i think a lot of people that slave away academically are not much fun in the short or long run, but i am sure there are exceptions.

i anxiously await the "Elite grave stones are not worth the money" thread.

[Hypnos]

if going to a certain school is fun, easy, makes your life better, it makes sense to me. i think a lot of people that slave away academically are not much fun in the short or long run, but i am sure there are exceptions.
I don't much care for it, but what's wrong with it if it's a means to an end?

[floyd]

the fact is life is less fun as you get older, if only in terms of physiologically fun capacity but also opportunity. even if you are an exception to the average physical deterioration, you will probably have less access to fun people and fun environments as you get older. so the 'end', in my opinion, is not worth sacrificing too much of the freedom and opportunity of your prime years. i have known some people who can have fun and 'elite' academic/job success, but many i have known have been of the compulsive/brainwashed/drag personality type, achievement robots. people who are very competent but not very bright/interesting in my opinion. at least some elite schools are full of that type of person in my opinion.

[Hypnos]

[...] i have known some people who can have fun and 'elite' academic/job success, but many i have known have been of the compulsive/brainwashed/drag personality type, achievement robots. people who are very competent but not very bright/interesting in my opinion. at least some elite schools are full of that type of person in my opinion.
It is foolish to deride those who find fulfillment in success as robots. Call them "J"s if you wish.

[floyd]

i find robot (or pod person) an accurate description for people who can not satisfactorily explain why they do what they do.

[Hypnos]

i find robot (or pod person) an accurate description for people who can not satisfactorily explain why they do what they do.
Of course, but this does not preclude seizing means to end as an aware, fulfilling activity.

[Conan]

i find robot (or pod person) an accurate description for people who can not satisfactorily explain why they do what they do.

Is "to support my family" satisfactory? Not that it applies to me personally, just to clarify your position for me.

[floyd]

Is "to support my family" satisfactory? Not that it applies to me personally, just to clarify your position for me.

that's remotely possible to a degree, but generally people driven/defined by family/kids, in my opinion, are mindless robots/pod people. i work hard so my kids can some day work hard for their kids so they can work hard for their kids... ad infinitum till a comet hits and renders the meaninglessness even more meaningless.

also, i think genetic difference + individual will is what differentiates most people, so giving your kid an expensive education / life is not going to alter their potential much. therefore, 'providing the best' is a weak justification for being a competitive sniveling networking cog.

[Conan]

that's remotely possible to a degree, but generally people driven/defined by family/kids, in my opinion, are mindless robots/pod people. i work hard so my kids can some day work hard for their kids so they can work hard for their kids... ad infinitum till a comet hits and renders the meaninglessness even more meaningless.

also, i think genetic difference + individual will is what differentiates most people, so giving your kid an expensive education / life is not going to alter their potential much. therefore, 'providing the best' is a weak justification for being a competitive sniveling networking cog.

Though many of those that make the least money often work as hard if not harder than many of those that make the most money, the difference often being as simple as education.

[Hypnos]

that's remotely possible to a degree, but generally people driven/defined by family/kids, in my opinion, are mindless robots/pod people. i work hard so my kids can some day work hard for their kids so they can work hard for their kids... ad infinitum till a comet hits and renders the meaninglessness even more meaningless.
You can't know until you have kids, no? I have none, but from what I understand their immediate comfort and security and potential for future comfort and security become high emotional priorities. There is nothing objective to counter this, because it's all intrinsically meaningless.


also, i think genetic difference + individual will is what differentiates most people, so giving your kid an expensive education / life is not going to alter their potential much. therefore, 'providing the best' is a weak justification for being a competitive sniveling networking cog.
If you read Rajah's article, one researcher finds that self-selection (SAT scores, etc. that you might attribute to innate abilities) accounts for 75% of future salary success, but the college's contribution to the remaining 25% is still more than enough to prefer an "elite" institution.

[floyd]

Though many of those that make the least money often work as hard if not harder than many of those that make the most money, the difference often being as simple as education.

that's a good point. i am inclined to think the people that take some form of the middle road have the most pleasure while still making a sufficient living (although that road will look different depending on the abilities of the person). for people who slack too much (especially if they are not very gifted), life can be very hard. but there are many people, i think, who sacrifice life enjoyment and exploration because the ignorantly seek accomplishments and riches (for various cognitively/emotionally irrational reasons) that require more life/freedom sacrifices and yield less rewards in the long run.

[Conan]

that's a good point. i am inclined to think the people that take some form of the middle road have the most pleasure while still making a sufficient living (although that road will look different depending on the abilities of the person). for people who slack too much (especially if they are not very gifted), life can be very hard. but there are many people, i think, who sacrifice life enjoyment and exploration because the ignorantly seek accomplishments and riches (for various cognitively/emotionally irrational reasons) that require more life/freedom sacrifices and yield less rewards in the long run.

I agree. However, you have to remember that different things drive different people. For example, I can spend a day doing just sitting around by myself reading and thinking and at the end of the day will look back on it fondly. My father on the other hand, who is an INTJ, will become upset after a day in which he has accomplished nothing tangible. My sister and mother, ENFPs, consider a wasted day one without much personal interaction. My Jewish cousin an ESTJ, also need tangible results to consider his day satisfactory to him, he measures these tangible results in money as to him, it equals security. At the end of it all, I find it hard to consider any particular pursuit as the correct one, in fact, objectively, my own pursuit seems to be the least rewarding.

[Mr. Beef]

I think that it would be safe to say that a little bit of tangible and intangible accomplishment is healthy. The problem is when your personality is too S or J, for instance you might become a materialistic workaholic, whereas if you're too N or P you might live in a world of imagination, chasing one dream after another with no clear direction. If you're too I and T you also might not value relationships as much and if you're too E and F you might spend too much time partying and not accomplishing. You need to satisfy all eight functions on a daily basis.

[floyd]

the whole "all personality types have their pros and cons" argument is not that convincing to me. for example, if there is no god, then intps and intjs, the most athiest/agnostic types seem to be the least deluded type. in so far as what makes humans most unique/superior is higher brain functioning, i would think the least cognitively deluded personality types might be more ideal. as to other types being happy in their particular delusions, maybe they just 'think they are happy'. further, maybe they are least likely to discover the kind of long term happiness that an objective non deluded knowledge seeking mind may one day stumble upon (because intxs don't have their head in the sand/bible/conventions).

[Hypnos]

the whole "all personality types have their pros and cons" argument is not that convincing to me. for example, if there is no god, then intps and intjs, the most athiest/agnostic types seem to be the least deluded type. [...]
It's not a falsifiable question, so irrelevant.


as to other types being happy in their particular delusions, maybe they just 'think they are happy'.
What's the difference between that and genuine happiness?


further, maybe they are least likely to discover the kind of long term happiness that an objective non deluded knowledge seeking mind may one day stumble upon (because intxs don't have their head in the sand/bible/conventions).
Or the intxs overthink things, and they don't see the happiness to be had right under their noses.

INTxs might think for it's own sake, but to assume that it correlates strongly with comprehension of reality and personal happiness is naive. Clearly, there are a lot of clueless dipshits and pathetic depressives around here.

[KuJo]

im pretty sure there are alot of ISTPs lurking around here, mistyped and ready to argue about nothing.

[distraction tactics]

im pretty sure there are alot of ISTPs lurking around here, mistyped and ready to argue about nothing.

*zzzzzz-uhh?

*sniffs air*

...false alarm? hrmmzzxxs.

[nihilist]

im pretty sure there are alot of ISTPs lurking around here, mistyped and ready to argue about nothing.

And you assume that "accepted" INTPs' arguments are always substantial?

Clearly, you're listening to authority more than reason by harboring bias for/against a particular personality type, which in itself is a subjective assessment.

[Melody]

in many instances i would prefer to die on the streets than partake of certain systems

[Hustler]

the fact is life is less fun as you get older, if only in terms of physiologically fun capacity but also opportunity. even if you are an exception to the average physical deterioration, you will probably have less access to fun people and fun environments as you get older.

Is that really a fact? As I get older, I get richer and meet more people. As I get richer and meet more people, my opportunities increase. You posting this right after you bagged on networking, by the way, is laughable. Par for the course.

[sbw]

in so far as what makes humans most unique/superior is higher brain functioning, i would think the least cognitively deluded personality types might be more ideal

I heart floyd. even if he makes no sense.

Scott

[sbw]

Is that really a fact? As I get older, I get richer and meet more people. As I get richer and meet more people, my opportunities increase.

me too. funny how that works.

Scott

[WinningTheGame]

AS best as I can tell, this discussion has been won repeatedly by hustler and those supporting the best institutions of higher learning as "worth the cost" over a lifetime. I tend to agree base on one principle. No matter how smart I can become, it is probable that there is one if not very many people far more intelligent than I. Following this line of logic, the smartest person at an average college would most certainly have to look elsewhere for mind-expanding ideas and informational Jeffersonian debate with "peers".

Regardless of motive, elite schools attract better minds and thus the smartest percentage of them will undoubtedly be able to provide more insight and guidance than the same percentage at an excellent but average university.

My philosohpy on life follows that intelligence isnt knowing the answer. Intelligence is knowing how to find or figure the answer. At the very least, In an elite institution you have more resources to find answers and solve problems (by way of typically more motivated, insightful and educated intellectual peers).

In my opinion, the failure of people to acknowledge this is likely a result of an inability to consider that anyone could have done more than you did given the same situation. It appears naive and inherently flawed in thinking.

No one disputes that one individual may be able to get a better education and enough stimulation from average universities. But if you are trying to define absolutes . . . good luck.

[WinningTheGame]

but there are many people, i think, who sacrifice life enjoyment and exploration because the ignorantly seek accomplishments and riches (for various cognitively/emotionally irrational reasons) that require more life/freedom sacrifices and yield less rewards in the long run.

Life/freedom sacrifices are, for lack of a more original term, "in the eye of the beholder" Whatever i choose to do is an exercising of my freedoms, whether I am aware of it or not. In another way . . . Just because you choose to exercise your freedoms by choosing difficult or sacrificing way does not mean that their path was wrong. You seem to assume that everyones life purpose shoudl be the same. for example, "exploration and enjoyment" may not equate to everyone.



in so far as what makes humans most unique/superior is higher brain functioning, i would think the least cognitively deluded personality types might be more ideal. as to other types being happy in their particular delusions, maybe they just 'think they are happy'. further, maybe they are least likely to discover the kind of long term happiness that an objective non deluded knowledge seeking mind may one day stumble upon (because intxs don't have their head in the sand/bible/conventions).


I believe this to be true. As an animal on earth we evolved a spectacular reasoning function as our main tool of survival. To deny logic and reasoning is to abondon your sole tool for survival and to open yourself to delusions, poor decisions and serious manipulation. I don't know about most other INTP's and INTJ's but I can get particularly strong feelers to beleive and do just about anything even if it seems obvious to me that the outcome will be negative.

:rocker:

[Rajah]

i wonder whether the first post is just an example of some people's tendency to want to volunteer they went to an elite school in whatever context they can most naturally package it. sort of like how some people will occassinally complain about how hard it is being beautiful (the subtext being - "hi world, i'm beautiful, look at me"). especially, since the more valid subject in the first post seems to be whether one should spend three years of one's life (+ however much/little money) in law school if you don't end up being a lawyer. i think going to a non elite law school and not ending up as a lawyer is about as potentially wasteful so why focus on the 'elite' context unless you are just driven (consciously or subsconsciously) to tell people that you went to an elite school.Since you asked, I'll answer, though I would be pleased to let this thread just die already.

I actually debated whether or not to disclose that I went to a so-called elite school when I posted the article because I didn't want it to come off as elitist. I only decided to volunteer that information at the outset because I anticipated that someone would basically question why I was interested in debunking what I perceive as the myth that an "elite" education necessarily equals a better education (or at least an education that leads to better job opportunities). Other than you, I can't conceive why anyone would possibly interpret my post as me showing off. In fact, my whole goal is to make people question the "value" of an "elite" education and carefully assess whether a school people generally deem less prestigious might offer equal or even better opportunities. Going to a Harvard or Yale is not necessarily the best option just because it's a Harvard or Yale. I think it's clear how little value I assign to the name of the school given my careful quotes around "elite".

And no, nobody should waste three years in any law school if they don't want to be a lawyer. I was confident that law was a perfect career for me. I gave it a lot of consideration. Unfortunately, what I hate about law was something I couldn't have possibly understood until entering the legal field. Unfortunate.

[Hustler]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[songbird36]

I have degrees from state schools and a so-called "elite" school. I feel each institution offered a comparable education. It's pretty clear that my "elite" education isn't going to pay off (after all, I don't want to be a lawyer anymore). Verdict? Save your cash!


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=elitecollege

I went through the State school system myself, and my kids will probably do the same. With the right innate ability, motivation, and commitment, kids/young adults can do well at almost any educational institution. I say almost anybecause some schools/unis are clearly academically inferior, and should be avoided.

[nagrom]

This entire discourse/shouting-match has ignored something that I'd like to see some opinions on.

There seem to be 5 general types of schools in my experience:
1. Elite private schools (expensive)
2. Private schools (cheap)
3. Liberal arts private schools (expensive)
4. Elite public universities (cheap)
5. Public universities (cheap)

Hypno/Hustler seem to be arguing that the intellectual atmosphere offered by an elite college is worth the cost.
Rajah/nihilist seem to be arguing that the intellectual atmosphere can be sought at a larger, less elite institution and that the cost is not justified.

Personally, I'm planning on attending a super-expensive small not-quite-elite liberal arts school. I'm assuming I'd be paying for the atmosphere. I've been told by many people that the atmosphere is worth paying for.
I'm biased towards siding with Hypno/Hustler for my own benefit.

Is a small N-magnet liberal-arts college even more of a waste of money than an elite college?

[2hype]

Which college is it?

I had the chance to go to any school I wanted. I had high test scores, a 4.0 gpa, was in lots of extra curricular activities, won awards, captain of this and that, blah blah blah. Plus my parents would have been happy to pay for it all. I went to a decent, private liberal arts college instead.

Maybe its just where I live, but is seems that bachelor degrees are a dime a dozen now. I wish I went to one of the top schools. Most people respect that name on your resume. It will get you more interviews. Most people automatically think you are smart if they find out you have a degree from Harvard or Yale or the University of Chicago or MIT or wherever.

I'm 33 and have a boring, crappy job I hate, and am making less than $13 an hour. I seem completely unable to get interviews for any decent paying jobs, let alone jobs that provide any opportunity for advancement. I can't help but thinking I would be having a little easier time of it if I had one of those schools listed on my resume.

EDIT: Yes, it probably is a waste of money. You can get a great education almost anywhere. Why pay for a super-expensive education that isn't going to improve your job prospects?

[Rajah]

This entire discourse/shouting-match has ignored something that I'd like to see some opinions on.

There seem to be 5 general types of schools in my experience:
1. Elite private schools (expensive)
2. Private schools (cheap)
3. Liberal arts private schools (expensive)
4. Elite public universities (cheap)
5. Public universities (cheap)

Hypno/Hustler seem to be arguing that the intellectual atmosphere offered by an elite college is worth the cost.
Rajah/nihilist seem to be arguing that the intellectual atmosphere can be sought at a larger, less elite institution and that the cost is not justified.

Personally, I'm planning on attending a super-expensive small not-quite-elite liberal arts school. I'm assuming I'd be paying for the atmosphere. I've been told by many people that the atmosphere is worth paying for.
I'm biased towards siding with Hypno/Hustler for my own benefit.

Is a small N-magnet liberal-arts college even more of a waste of money than an elite college?
Probably. :)

The OP referred to job prospects. I'm all for paying extra money, if you want, for the personal development and atmosphere at a smaller liberal arts college.

Go where you want to go; spend what you want to spend. Just don't be deluded into thinking this is necessarily going to translate into job opportunities.

[Jennywocky]

I attended a private 'elite' school (a wannabe Ivy League) that raises *lots* of money from alumni -- I definitely felt like a second-class citizen when I attended, since I come from a rural area.

In the late 80's, it cost $18-20K a year to attend. Today, I think the annual price is $32K.

I personally do not think it's worth it to spend that much money, for the amount of return you get... unless you FULLY invest yourself in that experience. That means doing every activity you can find, working with all instructors you can manage on a personal level -- I mean REALLY taking advantage of it.

The main benefits are: Potential resources/opportunities to practice/use head knowledge (w/ intelligent professors who enjoy working with kids); creating potential contacts for after graduation; and a prestigious name for your resume.

But really, I think decent state schools are worlds cheaper, and if their curriculum is solid, then you can probably glean as much out of them as out of a private school.

I think most college kids are far too young, in terms of maturity, to properly get the full amount of investment back from an expensive school. Only a few really seem to take advantage of the extra resources they are paying for.

I say that, of course, in the most grossest generalizing way possible.

[Conan]

I had 22,000 of 35,000 covered by the school. Another advantage of these schools is if you get in, they promise to cover 100% of your financial need.

[Nox]

A few years ago, I would have been inclined to agree. However, there is one school that is different.

St. John's College

Students there study the Great Ideas of Western thought. From Homer to Einstein. It's all there. Classes are in a discussion type format. All ideas from the students are considered. Some ideas are accepted, and some are rejected. The point here is that, students aren't force fed ideas. The students analyze them, and determine for themselves whether the ideas have merit.

The reading list: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302

[nagrom]

A few years ago, I would have been inclined to agree. However, there is one school that is different.

St. John's College

Students there study the Great Ideas of Western thought. From Homer to Einstein. It's all there. Classes are in a discussion type format. All ideas from the students are considered. Some ideas are accepted, and some are rejected. The point here is that, students aren't force fed ideas. The students analyze them, and determine for themselves whether the ideas have merit.

The reading list: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302

Ah, thanks for reminding me of this school. I was told about it, but it sounded silly by the description so I never investigated.
I will now conduct a thorough investigation.

Currently, I've got all my eggs in the Bard basket. I can't get the combination of: small liberal-arts (progressive) + intellectual atmosphere + an artsy approach to science (particularly cs) anywhere else really.

[nittanylion302]

I had the chance to go to some elite schools, I had a high SAT score, great class rank, APs galore, leadership positions, etc. But my parents wanted me to stay close to home rather than go to an expensive faraway private school.

At the time I was also unsure of what I wanted to major in, so a school like PSU with hundreds of majors seemed ideal. I'm in the honors college here with a 1/4 tuition scholarship and things are OK. I did end up choosing to major in a major pretty much every college has (math). I also did meet a bunch of N-like friends do to honors housing. To be honest, I've been rather disappointed with my non-honors classes. In the engineering department, it seems that we should all be monkeys parroting formulas rather than independent thinkers. I think that's rather sad.

I sometimes wonder what it would have been like had I gone to some of the schools I wanted to go to (UVa, Cornell, J.Hopkins) but then again I can't really imagine paying so much money to go to college. I also wonder if there really would have been more N-types at those schools. Many of the people who want to go to elite colleges are "prestige obsessed" and are really more into getting ahead and winning than actually learning anything, SJ behavior pretty much.

[kansen68]

Well, I currently go to a state school and I don't think that it's not that bad. It's a little crowded sometimes and I feel like I'm back in high school, but I met so many different people, and their motives are so different. In a state school there are students who are 18 to 50 and they are there for many different reasons. But they all want one thing, to just graduate. I believe that it doesn't matter where you go for college as long you work hard and get decent grades and take up the opportunities that they have to offer.

Heck, I'm glad that I'm going to a state-school because It's one of the best valued colleges in the US...or so I heard. I got a full ride (and then some) and all I'm not even in honors college (Even though I could have been in it if people told me about it before the deadline).

Well, I do know people who went to an elite college and say they had a better education, but sometimes I think they are just full of air. I think you could come out of college still being the same dumbass when you came in. It is up to you to notice and take the opportunities that are there or come up. Though, replying to what you said nittanylion, I do sometimes wonder what would happen if I attended an elite school. I could have hated it or loved it, but I don't think about it too much.

[nagrom]

A few years ago, I would have been inclined to agree. However, there is one school that is different.

St. John's College

Students there study the Great Ideas of Western thought. From Homer to Einstein. It's all there. Classes are in a discussion type format. All ideas from the students are considered. Some ideas are accepted, and some are rejected. The point here is that, students aren't force fed ideas. The students analyze them, and determine for themselves whether the ideas have merit.

The reading list: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302

Do you have any personal experience with St. John's?

Anybody have opinions on the concept?

[2hype]

I believe that it doesn't matter where you go for college as long you work hard and get decent grades and take up the opportunities that they have to offer.

I used to think that too. And if you're going just to get an education, I think you're right. If you are looking for credentials, it doesn't matter how much you learn.

[airjaw]

One of the reasons I love INTPc and keep coming back here is because of the presence and intellectual contribution of many well-read and intelligent individuals, which gives INTPc a decidedly more intellectual atmosphere than any random internet forum. It's not hard to assume that elite colleges would also have a greater intellectual atmosphere due to this principle.


edit:: I don't think anyone can dispute MIT's superiority when it comes to academic institutions. Just look at how many bright students, research, innovation goes on there.

[avolkiteshvara]

Elite schools might be a bit better. They have more money, which means the can attract the best teachers, which in turn produce a better education.

But the difference isn't that great. I think elite schools are more about socialization and networking.

[Ferrus]

Yeah, why pay more money to spend several years drunk and stoned than you have to?

[nagrom]

I still haven't actually gone to an elite school, but I go to a mid-level large public university that's right next to the top ranked university in Canada and I've been thinking about this lately.

For one, as far as I can tell the only difference between my school and the elite one is that their buildings look nicer on the outside, generally the students have more homework, and the demographic is different (more rich kids at the elite school -- and honestly I consider that a plus).

I think what really matters when you're talking about large institutions is what little pockets and nooks can be found. The pockets and nooks I'm talking about are usually 1. anti-bureaucratic and 2. highly funded (or at least they were at the time that their political structures and traditions were formed). For instance, my school has two elite colleges hidden away inside, a "Science College" and a "Liberal Arts College". These two little gems make my school one of the best in Canada for humanities and natural science. We also have a very interesting and active media-art research community that gets a lot of funding. Our elite neighbor has a highly funded music technology program (that's accessible to undergrads). I think that if I were not involved with any of these special programs, my school, at least, would not be worth it. I can only imagine that every large university has little pockets like this for different types of people.

I get the feeling that many small elite schools are one big pocket. Everything is personal and valuable, perhaps with notable exceptions. They are at least somewhat un-bureaucratic by virtue of their size. All of them were founded with large grants or donations and every time they grow, it's from a sudden influx of cash.

Essentially I'm coming to believe that educational institutions get worse and worse as they grow on the whole, but they harbor autonomous zones that are isolated from the homogenizing machinery around them where strong educational values flourish. What do you think about this theory?

EDIT: I'm ignoring the fact that it's probably possible for a large institution to work reasonably well. I'm sure there are varying degrees to which bureaucracy corrupts the educational environment.

[Kelric]

Elite schools might be a bit better. They have more money, which means the can attract the best teachers, which in turn produce a better education.

But the difference isn't that great. I think elite schools are more about socialization and networking.

I think the difference isn't that great, for the vast majority of students (especially undergraduates). Like most things, college is what you make of it - it might be easier in some places, but a interested, hardworking student at a "lower tier" school is going to do every bit as well or better than an average student at an "elite school".

Also, consider that a lot of the "best teachers" that elite institutions pursue aren't the "best teachers." They're the "researchers who bring in the most grant money." Some of them are fine teachers too, but that's not why they get hired / tenured.

I work at a private university with a pretty good national reputation, and I can honestly say that I think it would be a great place to go to school - in many ways it's probably superior to the public university I attended, even for undergraduate students (who by definition are in more generalized programs of study, rather than cutting-edge type of stuff). But for the difference in cost? I can't say that it's even a close decision. I made the right choice by going to a public university - *especially* in that I wouldn't have been eligible for much financial aid. I would have been firmly in the group of students who didn't qualify for need-based scholarships, but whose parents would have had to raid their retirement to pay the "expected amount" - which is not something I'd have ever encouraged (not like they would have, anyway). I'd say that if you're facing any substantial difference in cost (taking out big loans, etc.) - the lower-cost school is likely a good long-term choice.

[avolkiteshvara]

Also, consider that a lot of the "best teachers" that elite institutions pursue aren't the "best teachers." They're the "researchers who bring in the most grant money." Some of them are fine teachers too, but that's not why they get hired / tenured.



No I thought of that after I wrote it. I guess I was trying to give some weight to the Ivys. They also want to best researchers for publishing. I think it is a money and reputation thing.

[airjaw]

I know that cost was one of the factors that the OP took into account when discussing whether Elite schools were worth their value, but I think we should drop "cost" as one of the factors because public schools are subsidized by the state. Also, what if you get full rides to both public and private schools?

we should be discussing what opportunities for learning ,networking, and growth each university offers, not how much it costs. In my experience, costs are highly variable anyways. I went to a school ranked around #50 but I had a partial scholarship... which makes the actual cost similar to that of a state university. Some schools give full rides to all their students, and some elite schools are moving in that direction (Stanford, Harvard).

I don't think any public schools are doing that.