7 ms·

Mostly agree. But someone who turns down Stanford for State U is throwing away a golden ticket. The opportunities at state school just are not comparable.

kom107 11y ago
That's not entirely true. See: http://yscouts.com/executive/where-did-fortune-500-ceos-go-to-college/ http://yscouts.com/executive/where-did-fortune-500-ceos-go-t... Stanford has some fantastic opportunities, sure. But those opportunities come with significant opportunity costs (at the very least, financially). For some, it is better to attend a state school; the mental calculus involved in making this decision is rather difficult for an 18 year old and his/her family, especially with all of the noise that surrounds the college admissions process. If a kid is going to be a success, they'll be a success. Multiple studies support this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/where-you-go-to-college_n_5120129.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/where-you-go-to-col... Disclaimer: I'm a proud Penn State alum, which was (at the time) my safety school. Just my $0.02.
- tamana 11y ago
  The relevant question isn't whether Stanford admits will do better at Stanford or elsewhere. They will be fine regardless. The question is whether Stanford non-admits should try to buy their way to prestige by attending American over UVa or UMd.
  - kom107 11y ago
    Understood. I think one of the problems is that (fill in the blank: society, parents, students, guidance/admissions counselors, et al) seek to categorize and create blanket answers, whereas the correct answer is highly variable relative to the application. Boolean vs bayesian. As a mental exercise, I'm imagining a product that would, given a number of inputs, produce a bayesian curve of the applicant's possible outcomes, and then selects the best school for that applicant. While developing this product sounds like a fun side project, I can't imagine it gaining traction, because the aforementioned groups would get upset (read: not pay) that Prestigious U is not the best choice for Johnny, rather, Mid-Atlantic Middle College is. It would be difficult to get the secondary actors in the process to pay as well, because there is value generated for them by maintaining process homeostasis. Current thinking would suggest that I should have gone to, say, Bucknell over Penn State (again, I understand n=1 here, and I am not measuring my level of selective perception), whereas I am very happy with the course of events and think it produced the best outcome. I have to believe there is some grain of truth to my line of thinking and a potential for value generation in the decision aspect of college admissions.
  - auntienomen 11y ago
    The answer to the second question is pretty obviously no. There are maybe 20 private schools in the US which are genuinely worth the price over public schools. They're not just offering a comparable to better education. They're offering the children of the middle class an entree into the upper class. (Relatedly, the con which the 2nd tier private schools are running is selling parents the idea that just paying a lot for an education is a ticket up.) All of which seemed relevant to me since the author of TFA was making sacrifices to send his girls to Emory & Stanford.
tamana 11y ago
You are getting downvoted, but you are correct. Maybe a few state schools compare (UM, UM, Berkeley...) but even so, getting a market-relevant degree from Stanford is not a bad investment. You will so fine. Then again, if you live in California, Berkeley is great. But when people talk about wastefully expensive private schools, they really mean schools that have nothing over state schools but the price tag: GWU, George Mason, American, and the like. Combine that with a non-reliably-marketable degree like Psychology, Political Science, Communications, or Art History, and the result is disaster.

kom107 11y ago

That's not entirely true. See: http://yscouts.com/executive/where-did-fortune-500-ceos-go-to-college/ http://yscouts.com/executive/where-did-fortune-500-ceos-go-t... Stanford has some fantastic opportunities, sure. But those opportunities come with significant opportunity costs (at the very least, financially). For some, it is better to attend a state school; the mental calculus involved in making this decision is rather difficult for an 18 year old and his/her family, especially with all of the noise that surrounds the college admissions process. If a kid is going to be a success, they'll be a success. Multiple studies support this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/where-you-go-to-college_n_5120129.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/20/where-you-go-to-col... Disclaimer: I'm a proud Penn State alum, which was (at the time) my safety school. Just my $0.02.

tamana 11y ago
The relevant question isn't whether Stanford admits will do better at Stanford or elsewhere. They will be fine regardless. The question is whether Stanford non-admits should try to buy their way to prestige by attending American over UVa or UMd.
- kom107 11y ago
  Understood. I think one of the problems is that (fill in the blank: society, parents, students, guidance/admissions counselors, et al) seek to categorize and create blanket answers, whereas the correct answer is highly variable relative to the application. Boolean vs bayesian. As a mental exercise, I'm imagining a product that would, given a number of inputs, produce a bayesian curve of the applicant's possible outcomes, and then selects the best school for that applicant. While developing this product sounds like a fun side project, I can't imagine it gaining traction, because the aforementioned groups would get upset (read: not pay) that Prestigious U is not the best choice for Johnny, rather, Mid-Atlantic Middle College is. It would be difficult to get the secondary actors in the process to pay as well, because there is value generated for them by maintaining process homeostasis. Current thinking would suggest that I should have gone to, say, Bucknell over Penn State (again, I understand n=1 here, and I am not measuring my level of selective perception), whereas I am very happy with the course of events and think it produced the best outcome. I have to believe there is some grain of truth to my line of thinking and a potential for value generation in the decision aspect of college admissions.
- auntienomen 11y ago
  The answer to the second question is pretty obviously no. There are maybe 20 private schools in the US which are genuinely worth the price over public schools. They're not just offering a comparable to better education. They're offering the children of the middle class an entree into the upper class. (Relatedly, the con which the 2nd tier private schools are running is selling parents the idea that just paying a lot for an education is a ticket up.) All of which seemed relevant to me since the author of TFA was making sacrifices to send his girls to Emory & Stanford.

tamana 11y ago

You are getting downvoted, but you are correct. Maybe a few state schools compare (UM, UM, Berkeley...) but even so, getting a market-relevant degree from Stanford is not a bad investment. You will so fine. Then again, if you live in California, Berkeley is great. But when people talk about wastefully expensive private schools, they really mean schools that have nothing over state schools but the price tag: GWU, George Mason, American, and the like. Combine that with a non-reliably-marketable degree like Psychology, Political Science, Communications, or Art History, and the result is disaster.