New gvt website and college earnings

Thanks for sharing this. Having spoken with many parents navigating this process over the years, it seems commonplace that most gravitate to the scholarship $'s at the expense of the best academic school. I understand it to some extent as college has gotten so ridiculously expensive. But the fact remains that the game will tell everyone when they are done, and very very few are fortunate enough to make a living at it. 

Not a bad deal to play ball in the ACC or SEC at Duke, Notre Dame, Vandy, or Virginia with a little piece of mind on earning potential if baseball doesn't pan out. Obviously Rice in Conf USA and Northwestern and Michigan in the B10 aren't too shabby either.  

I believe most of this information is useless.  The prestigious schools are filled with brilliant people many of which come from the upper crust of society.  These people leave school and take jobs from family or family connections making huge money.  This skews the statistics.  What I want to see is these high and mighty academic institutions take on students with 16 ACT scores and turn them into rhodes scholars and high wage earners.  Then I will sing their praises.  Til then its quality in, quality out.

so I guess you are in agreement that going a school with a quality in and strong alumni network is a plus? One thing I have learned is being a good student and making money are not the same...being highly educated and understanding business and what makes business profitable are not the same. I have also learned the connections can be priceless and IMO the alumni network is one of the least discussed and underrated components to a "great education"

       
       
No doubt a valid point.  But if you really network well you can make those connections at a lot of places.  Perhaps not as many.  Perhaps not as elite.  But you can make.them.  but in the end your point is an excellent one.  Sad but true.

2020.

 

How is it, if the schools you're addressing are filled with brilliant people "many of whom come from the upper crust of society," have 60% of its students on financial aid (average aid over $42,000 at Princeton)? Is the "upper crust" so thin that kids from that strata need financial aid? 

 

True, there is a correlation between a households educational background and higher test scores and grades; true, the better off economically a household is the higher the test scores and grades. But the average scores from admitted students are 31 - 35 ACT. While testing prep can have a huge advantage over those who cannot afford it, only the most unusual can buy their way to a 34.

 

IMO, those elite schools are heavily skewed - to the kids of the economically better off, to the kids who worked their tails off pursuing something to great depths (during HS), to the kids of hard working parents who pushed those kids without mercy to be better than their parents.  

 

The education at those schools are no better or worse then education available at most colleges (calculus is calculus); the teaching methods are no better or no worse. But the raw material (the students) for the most part are far different when compared to the overall raw material.

 

As to admitting a student with an ACT of 16, I ask why? Why should that kid be admitted instead of an ISEF (Intel Science and Engineering fair) first place winner? There are limited numbers of spots, and the kid who began blossoming in HS (a minority of kids) has earned consideration for admission. Since well over 30,000 applications inundate these schools, these schools choose the top scorers, top grades, top science award winners, top dancers; whatever demonstrates that the kid brings something to the table. Yes, the "princelings" and upper crust America are admitted - but those kids are the minority. And even better for the other kids, they make the connections with those kids (and the kids families), all of which create the network which is used to propel careers.

 

While anecdotal evidence can hardly be stretched to make broad conclusions, S's teammates generally mirrored the general student body; over half on FA, some had the schools buildings named after a family member. Throughout the years, their employment also mirrored the general student body. Starting salaries approach six figures for these guys (the financial sector was a focus)- in their first year out of school - and that had nothing to do with family connections. That happens to be what the big boy financial sector pays. (We can probably agree that there is no way a first year graduate is worth it, but they do work a lot.)

 

Here's the recipe: smart overachieving kids, mixed In with high society kids (also smart and overachieving), yields lots of wonderful opportunities.  

 

Bringing it it back to baseball, if a kid can leverage his baseball skills into a spot in the class, that kid has access to all the opportunities which come from an elite school. We can theorize that a fairer system would be better, but it's the system we have now and for those lucky and skilled few, IMO, they should take advantage of it.

 

That said, I agree that it would be great to see a school take kids with 16 ACT  scores and turn them into top performers.  

 

But that's not going to happen. Colleges and college parents should not have to spend their resources on remedial math and english, which is what kids with 16 ACT scores need.

 

But in a less exaggerated fashion there are schools that do give elite educations to kids who are not quite elite. Or what some call "A schools for B students."  Around here UC Riverside is getting a good rep for that. Elsewhere, I don't really know. Penn State?

 

Goosegg,

I attended a local panel discussion on Monday. One aspect which came out of that discussion (which is one of many locally) is the existence of what is called a suicide cluster.  Most have walked in front of a speeding commute train. Each came from  highly respected and demanding (nationally recognized) HS. Each might  fall within the descriptions you have summarized, especially "pushed without mercy..."

One member of the panel was the Mother of a child who walked in front of the train who explained that even now she will be confronted with "how could that happen, he was doing so well in such a great HS!"

During the program, to contrast with the article under discussion was a reference to a recent study of over 100,000 students at 120 universities and colleges nationwide. As the speaker noted, the schools included both the 20 which every parent is pushing their student "without mercy" to attend and another 100 no one wants their child to attend.  Within that framework, the range was from 6% who actively contemplated suicide to nearly 45% who felt they were significantly depressed/anxious or both in ways which impacted them in every day being a student.

Would be interesting to compare the extent to which the 120 universities in the study discussed by a member of the panel on Monday night might overlap with the article you have linked. Making sure we are in contact with our children for "who they are" not what they do or accomplish was a main and well received theme by an audience of very high achievers who are sending their children to a very high achieving HS, which now has emotional health of their students as a main focus going forward.

It's nearly impossible to calculate how much credit elite schools should receive for the success of their graduates, but that shouldn't be the point of the new web site.

 

Nobody who doesn't already know an MIT degree can lead to big things is going to use this site to decide to apply there, and then actually get in.

 

The potential value of this site is elsewhere in the education market, where many students could benefit from pausing to consider what they are getting when they borrow money to make one of the two or three largest consumer purchases of their lives.

 

As is true elsewhere in life, the people with the fewest options make their decisions with the least information. I hope this site helps some people avoid some of the money traps that are out there.

IFD,

 

I am aware of the specific cluster you speak of, and it's just horrible and unfathomable.  I'm no expert but my feeling is that there are hundreds of communities where there are similar pressures and expectations and where this sort of thing could happen at any time, and yet does not. Why it does happen or does not happen in a particular school is an unknown, but a cluster is at risk of occurring whenever  one kid does it, and makes it at least a thinkable option for others.  A particular method of doing the act seems to be a common thread as well, such as the train in this cluster,  or a cliff over the Hudson in one I recall from a couple decades back.

 

Most kids survive the stress of the "race to nowhere" but I think all parents should remember Malcolm Gladwell's advice (paraphrased) "It doesn't matter so much where you go to college, but what you do when you get there."  

Goose I am not sure where to start...  seems in a lot of ways we are saying the same thing.  It takes brilliant people in the first place to get in.  And I said many - notice that's not ALL - are from the upper crust.  Using your numbers (which I have no reason to doubt) 40% receive no aid.  Think about how much it costs to send your kid ivy with no aid!  I would say that 40% for sure is upper crust at least from my viewpoint.  Perhaps you have a much higher standard for wealthy than I do.  Also I am sure there are some of the 60% who do not receive a lot of aid.  Also pretty well off I would think.  So they let in some brilliant kids whose families are not wealthy.  What percentage we are not sure but a minority of the general population there for certain.  My oldest daughter could have gone ivy.  Chose elsewhere where she could get a full academic for her grades and her 32 ACT.  She did work hard, very hard for her accomplishment.   When she graduates from college with good grades and gets a good job it will be her accomplishment not theirs.  She is naturally gifted and a hard worker.  All I am saying is the measurement of a college SHOULD be how they elevate students not just churn in and out the best of the best.  I am saying I will sing a schools praises when it takes underprivileged kids (not the one off but on a regular basis) with pedestrian test scores and elevate them into significant wage earners.  Till then they accomplish nothing in my opinion.  That is not to say kids can not gain an advantage from their attendance there as old school pointed out.  But that is a different conversation.   As for earning it...  yes those students earned it.  But a lot is just god given as well.  I had a pretty good score on my ACT and I was still half drunk from the night before while I took the test.  Is that earning it?  Or just being gifted?  My wife scored well also and we have pretty smart kids.  Genetics mean a lot.  More than many care to admit.  Athletically and intellectually.  But what are  these high academics doing for our less fortunate?  Are they less worthy because they were not born into the right households?  And please don't compare the 'opportunity' to succeed between your kids or my kids and the kids in the ghetto.  Its good to be proud.  Its also good to be understanding and compassionate and charitable.

Many, many factors go into those numbers and how much is made after graduation.  If you are willing to work, the sky is the limit. 

 

The scholarship I give out goes to those who are willing to work hard.  That and their attitude are the 2 top attributes I look for.

For those who have not read it, I would encourage this link, Dear Andy, from the Harvard Crimson.  

 

http://www.thecrimson.com/arti...-health-letter-andy/