That is, apparently, exactly what one poster wants to do. I do not understand why we should pursue this.
You are absolutely correct. I mentioned this earlier in the thread and then ignored my own point.
Expensive schools don’t exist because they provide value for money, they exist because its prohibitive to under classes. A few token nonwhite students on full scholarship doesn’t change that at all.
The lower class generally sees education as a burden, an unnecessary expense of time and money to eventually persue the blue collar career that is expected. The middle class generally sees education as an opportunity to advance in the world, the better the education and hard work the greater the chance they will succeed. The upper class sees education as a social institution, the goal is to create networks that will plug them in to the wealthy and powerful positions. If that carrot doesn’t exist then the legacies will take their business and their future grant and donation money elsewhere.
Anyone have a guess as to what would happen to the value of a degree from an elite school if we significantly increased the volume of students at elite schools? I’m not sure at what point brand-dilution kicks in or when the supply of truly elite students starts hindering selection of ideal student bodies.
One in five students at Harvard have family income low enough that no familial contribution is required. That adds up on my fingers to more than a few token poors. I do understand your point about the importance of appealing to the wealthy too, so maybe we can explore this some more.
Maybe true in the past, and true for many schools now, but I think the Ivy League schools in particular have tried very hard to make it false in the current day. For example, Harvard’s statistics show a pretty good mix of ethnicities, probably better than most people would think.
Additionally, they changed tuition requirements in 2004 so students from families with income below $40000 attended for free, then to a sliding scale back in 2007. The idea is that they wanted to make sure students who were accepted could afford to attend. They’ve gradually tweaked and increased the aid for students over the years. For example, a student with a family income under $65000 attends for free. Families with income between $65000 and $150000 pay from zero to 10 percent of their income depending on circumstances.
Other Ivy League schools have similar programs in an effort to make it much more affordable for lower income families to afford attending.
I think I was pretty clear on the why. You don’t seem to disagree now that a Harvard degree is more valuable than a state school degree, so what exactly is your objection?
It’s even more perplexing to me given this model works in numerous other arenas, and even in primary and secondary education where we see successful models expanded (eg. KIPP). Of course it is harder when you are a centuries old institution, but the basic premise is the same.
Value of education means different things. It’s the ratio of education quality and cost. It’s the actual price I am willing to pay for a given education. Sitnam was just talking about the wealthy using education to “plug them in to the wealthy and powerful positions.” I don’t know what diluting their brand will do to that.
Here we go. I figured someone had looked at monetary return vs college selectivity, since that seems to be of interest here. DOI 10.3386/w17159
Essentially, the selectivity of one’s college does not affect monetary returns for most students.
I think that instead of focusing on the overall cost of college they would do better to focus on a cost-benefit analysis. For example, certain degrees that lead to higher paying jobs should be at the top campuses. But why does every darn school have to be on the same campus? Ex. at my alma mater, the University of Kansas, why do we have schools of music, social work, english, history, religion, and education all at the same campus as law, business, and engineering? Since they are all at the same campus they charge the same per credit cost so you pay the same money for a 3 credit history course as you do a chemistry course.
To me it would be smarter to have certain campuses be set aside for certain schools. Now it used to be that way. For example Emporia state was strictly a teachers college at one time. The University of Missouri at Rolla was strictly an engineering school.
What I think they did is each college wanted to boost its numbers so they added the other schools. However I think it would be both cheaper and more efficient to split up the different schools to different campuses.
Where would the engineering students take their English classes? Physics? Math? etc.
They can still have those. The difference is those courses would for the students going into say engineering and could be geared towards them. Its no different than a dedicated school like our local Kansas City Arts Institute, an art college, where the students also have to do the usual liberal arts curriculum like history and math.
This is also more efficient because like when I took english in college the instructors assumed we were english majors and geared the course towards students who were gifted in that way.
I think you might be overestimating the costs associated with these programs. While I graduated in 91 and obviously every organization is different, I also spent some time in my university’s residence hall association (fully separate from the rest of student government but we also represented more students than most universities have total).
Our movie program was a big budget item but it was CHEAP per student. Off campus students had to pay but on campus residents had it included in their 20ish a quarter fees. The net cost per resident (after “ticket sales” to off campus) was similar to the cost of getting on the bus to go to the closest mall with a theater (or buying gas) once or twice a quarter. That’s without actually paying for a movie. On campus residents even had the choice to leave the residence hall association and get their fees refunded but it was rare to do so since they gave up use of the programs.
We didn’t have a lot of giveaways but when we did we tended to get donations to support those programs. Many of the prizes you see may not increase costs. They may well be marketing giveaways.
No, I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion. First, this is the link (which you should have provided), and the whole quote:
The bolding portion does not prove your point. First, because it excluded large groups of people.
Second, because the average SAT scores of the schools a student applies to are largely irrelevant and highly skewed for a number of reasons. The study worked by looking at “academic siblings”, but the issue is that such a comparison excluded many, many people. We can reasonably infer that if someone gets in to 3 Ivies and Stanford, they would have gotten into a less selective school like UNC or Rutgers. Yet, most of those students will never apply to Rutgers for a variety of reasons. Not only because many utilize early action to apply, but also because anyone reasonably confident they will get into a (any) highly selective school doesn’t bother with applying to marginal state schools. What you are left with are students who are largely similar, but also more likely to be on the bubble. As a result, the differences in outcomes are largely muted. The point being that if you took the incoming class at Harvard and moved them to UC-Riverside, those students would almost certainly make less money in total. In short, the study isn’t directly answering the question we have.
Third, because the average SAT of a college is not reflective of a given individual.
Fourth, this study is on selectivity, not expenditures per students which skew highly towards elite schools and is highly correlated with sticker price tuition. When you look at sticker tuition, wages are highly positively correlated. This is one reason someone might be better off attending Harvard than a less prestigious school.
Regardless, you are missing the initial point which was to incentivize elite schools to accept more students. While there is significant overlap between selective schools and elite schools, they are not one and the same. As I linked to before, this article (which cites your study) makes my point):
Yes, there are exceptions, but my initial point stands. We are better off generally with more Princeton graduates (for example), and we should incentivize schools with good models to expand.
Problem solved! We’ll just expand Harvard to handle a million grads per year!
Your article doesn’t really tell the whole story. Chances are you aren’t working in the next cubicle over from a Harvard grad getting paid 10-20% more than you to do the same job. And there’s a reason for that. It’s because graduates from elite schools generally don’t apply to or work at the same jobs as mediocre students or even top students from run of the mill schools. Adding more “elite” colleges or even expanding existing elite colleges to handle more students isn’t going to help because Mckinsey, Goldman Sachs, Google, Blackrock and all the other management consulting firms, investment banks, tech firms hedge funds, and private equity firms are only hiring so many analysts and associates at $70-$120k out of college with the potential for high six and seven figure careers.
So for the next level at the mere “selective” schools, there are still opportunities. Fortune 500 management training programs. Accounting and advisory jobs at Big-4 accounting firms. Back office technology jobs. Jobs that still pay well, even if they aren’t necessarily “cover of Forbes”.
But after that, it kind of goes downhill pretty quickly. There’s a lot of jobs in big corporations that never make more than $50k a year. Maybe after decades of working at the same shitty company, their bosses boss will earn $120k a year (less than a 26 year old new MBA grad at Mckinsey) as VP of whatever the fuck making sure her team processes their TPS reports on time every week.
Anyhow, my point is that college tuition has become so expensive because the opportunities offered by attending the most elite schools are worth it (provided you don’t study something stupid). But as there are only so many “elite” jobs out there, one does need to do a cost benefit analysis to evaluate if getting a $160k education for a $45k a year job is ultimately worth it.
Interesting link to schools considered “best value”.
Note that these are not best in terms of “absolute value”.
This is a ranking of compensation by school.
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2013/full-list-of-schools
Do you think that is a fair synopsis of my proposal?
That is likely true but doesn’t speak to the point at all.
You’d be right if that were the sum total of great jobs out there. They’re not. There are huge sectors that have to import talent because we aren’t creating them. It’s not clear there are too few good jobs or opportunities out there for well trained people.
What are you basing this job shortage on? Unemployment for these people is basically as low as it could be. Yes, not all of them have AWESOME jobs, but they likely have better jobs than if they had gone to a worse school.
So, in a thread about ways to lower the cost of college, your propsal is to somehow have more students attend more expensive schools? 
On the plus side for McKinsey and the like, they might not have to pay so much if their applicant pool expands. So they might be all over a proposal like this, much like the pharmaceutical industry wants more STEMers (linkety; no DOI, sorry).
There is a great book called Debt-Free U that was written very recently by a guy who was still in college. He says it is very possible to graduate without any student debt, even if your parents haven’t’ saved a penny before you start, with a few steps.
-
First 2 years at a community college. Dirt cheap, get a part time job and start saving as much as possible.
-
Go to your local state school. Keep working part time and use you savings from your community college years.
-
If the parent can contribute something minimal like $25/week and you can make $180 week (working 20 hours a week at $9 hour).
-
The rest is just being really frugal and graduating as soon as possible.
We need to change how we use college, and stop sending everyone there.
There are millions of jobs that “require” a college degree where no such thing ought to be required. It is often used as nothing but a glorified screener.
I want us to try and mimic more of what is done in Europe to a lager degree. Trade schools and apprenticeship where professions are more directly linked to a focused program. We need those paths to become more viable and respected, and that will empty out the colleges and allow them to focus more on the humanities and sciences.
But honestly, before we do any of that, I am sick of the black box of college education spending. I want third party accountants to go in and itemize every expense to see WHERE the money is going.
I concur. I think the idea that you need a degree for so many jobs is just not true. Sure, a degree helps you be somewhat more exposed to various things and helps improve your intelligence and/or analytical thoughts perhaps, and communication skills, but to have it be an absolute requirement for so many positions doesn’t make sense in all cases. Some positions could just as easily be done by those trained in some less expensive apprenticeship program for 10 months or something rather than 4 year degree. But who is going to convince employers to change that? Seems a 4 year degree is becoming the new norm which only encourages this standard to be the same or raised even more to where a master’s degree is the new norm.