I might not be making more money now than I would be if I’d gone to the state university near my mom’s house. In fact, I’m almost certainly not – I’m self-employed in a creative field.

What I did get though, was exposure to a vivid intellectual culture, and experience in the kinds of creative and thoughtful lives it was possible to have.

Growing up, I didn’t know anyone other than teachers who had gone to college. Every adult I knew worked in an office or a factory. They worked for other people, doing work they didn’t like much in exchange for an OK salary, and lived their real lives on the weekends.

College taught me that people can have lifelong creative and intellectual pursuits at the center of their lives, even if they’re not famous. Going to a small, elite school also helped me build a lifelong network of creative friends and allies – something I’m pretty sure would have been a lot harder at a state school.

I hate to break it to you, but students at the elite universities often don’t read the books either. As a graduate student, I was a TA for years at a top tiered undergraduate institution (in the top 20 in the country), and there were many times that the discussion was non-existent because the students had obviously not read the material. Sure, perhaps they were more able to use their verbal skills to mask the fact that they didn’t do the work, but it was still obvious to me. The reality is that many of the students at any institution are just there for the degree and do not care about learning. It’s sad, but true.

We choose to send our children to a state (not private) school because of cost, and also because all the private schools are religious.

We bought a house in the right area and feel it was a very good move. A child’s peer group is very important, and my kids have really nice friends. The school offers streamed classes and they will be in the top class where kids want to be there, and the teacher doesn’t waste time on behavioral issues.

We were challenged in this high school, and students tended to sort as super-smart vs regular smart, but the school did not calculate class rank and that took a lot of pressure off (we had enough pressure from the amount of studying we had to do). We were required to take the PSAT and 20% of my class became National Merit Finalists. A whole lot of my peers went to selective colleges, but a large portion went to state universities as well. I noted that my first year at a selective school was a little easier than boarding school, but I was very well prepared and the remaining three years were on par with the amount and type of hard work I did in that boarding school.

Sixteen years later, almost everyone finished college and many people have advanced degrees. I don’t see a lot of success difference between the state-uni alumni vs. the Ivy/selective alumni. What is apparent is that all the students worked very hard as well as had natural talent, and success was the result.

I went to a highly selective school in the NE but returned to my midwest roots after college. Occasionally employers have recognized my school name, but it’s not well known in this part of the country and I’m not sure it has given me a specific advantage over time. A great work ethic, natural talent, and a good job fit have been my greatest strengths, and I’m very successful but not taking over the company or anything like that. I’ve noted over time that when I worked for ‘average’ employers I tended to be a very high performer relative to my peers, but now that I’m at a ’selective’ employer most of my peers are very worthy, hard workers. It’s been harder to stand out (much like boarding school and college), but easy to succeed among other smart, hard workers.

I would never trade my expensive liberal arts college experience (just paid off my school loans, yay!), but I think the confidence it gave me as a ‘reward’ for hard work before college, and the work ethic I learned was necessary, factors more now than name recognition.

Since grades and everything else is varied by school, the A student from a poorly run school with light material taught is not equivalent to the B student who went to a demanding high school. It’s really hard to compare, the demanding high school would have pushed someone to complete higher level math classes which are essential for those going into engineering programs in college. The edge is present right there. This does not mean a student unprepared cannot catch up, but they will need to be self-motivated to work harder or they may feel too pressured to continue like #18.

Lastly, lifetime earnings does really depend on the individual to make use of his/her time, resources, and abilities plus a side of attitude. Successful people know how to manage all three, and with some extra elbow grease and maybe some luck, the possibilities are really endless. Though I’m sure the alumni network for hiring from an ivy would count as a good resource.

After that, I got accepted into the #1 PhD program in my field of interest, but I was woefully underprepared compared to the rest of the students in my class, all 20 of whom came from Ivy League schools. I eventually dropped out, after hiring a tutor and doing everything else I could think of to learn the material, because I was failing every class due to lack of sufficient background information. If my college had been more rigorous, that wouldn’t have happened.

My wife, on the other hand, attended a top ivy league institution. Sure, we’re still paying her student loans, but she was able to have a full intellectual life in college. To us, it was totally worth it.

I know this is just one story, and that the article is concerned with the big picture and the average student. I haven’t read the study, so I’m not prepared to comment on their methodology. Maybe their conclusion is reasonable. Still, I think it’s important to recognize that not every student is the “average” student, and that those conclusions don’t hold for all.

In my opinion, it’s BOTH the school AND the student.

Also, as per selectivity. I have went to a highly selective school but the school’s name ID is primarily in the northeast. With that said, if I moved to anywhere outside of the northeast, no one would know how selective my school was.

Finally, employers stopped asking or caring where I went to school or how well I did in school after my first job. Thereafter, they were primarily concerned with job performance.

What this essentially means is that if you’re qualified to go somewhere, you don’t really need to go there. (Study hard in K12, get accepted into a top tier univ. Then proceed to save the money by going to an in- state school.) Your lifetime earnings is essentially determined by your IQ level. “Unfortunately” companies are not allowed to screen for IQ during interviews, so therefore they use a degree which acts as a proxy. Obviously universities make a hefty buck on this piece of legislation. If it did not exist, companies would just use a ten dollar test and put very many so-called advanced education providers out of business. Truly, probably 50% of those going to college are not there to learn anything they’re ever going to need. They are simply there to engage in a costly prescreening process for corporate America. It’s all very sad.

Bonus information: Interview performance matters very very little for job performance. If you’re looking to hire, find out the applicant’s IQ and then get his/her track record either directly or by asking for references. If you’re sure they’re not lying on their resume, you can just ignore the interview. In particular, if anyone performs badly on the interview, it’s not very relevant.
So says statistics.

While there are certainly big differences among colleges in this country, i.e. community colleges vs. Johns Hopkins U. et al, I would never say the difference is as impactful as that between lower schools. I see your point much more clearly now, Trent, and I do agree to a large extent.

I went to a university that cost $20,000 a year in tuition (in the nineties – by now it’s significantly higher), and I can tell you that in many respects it was not worth the money both in terms of the education and in terms of my long term financial prospects. I could have accomplished the same goals if I had gone to my in-state university. I was the same student either way – motivated and relatively hard working – so I see Trent’s point that, given a solid educational foundation in the earlier years, it’s not the university, it’s the student.

On the flip side, a motivated student who does everything to his/her best ability, perseveres when the material becomes challenging, works through obstacles instead of giving up, will come out of school (elementary through college levels) with a fabulous education and a work ethic that sets him/her apart, even if the student is in a non-selective public school.

THAT is the point on this article, the student’s attitude and effort, and not the name of the school, determines their success level however it’s measured.

As required class reading, I’ve just finished two of Jonathan Kozol’s books about inequality in elementary, middle, and high schools. Based on his research, it definitely makes a difference where children attend school. Some inner city schools are so dilapidated, contractors have condemned them, yet states get a waiver to keep them open due to lack of funds. The depressing conditions only add to the hopelessness in the student’s life. The chances of these students ever graduating from high school is cut in half.

I agree with you that it would be great if all parents spent quality time with their children. This positively affects a child’s overall education.

Do they really, truly assert that the quality of a person’s education doesn’t impact their test scores? What planet do they live on?????

Let’s compare the private high school I went to with my brother’s public school. In my school, we had PSAT test prep sophomore year and SAT prep junior year. My brother’s school didn’t offer the PSATs, let alone free test prep for either. In our English classes, we read more advanced novels and wrote more essays, answering questions similar to essay questions on the SATs. This was standard starting in freshman year. The more exposure any student has to the *types* of questions or thinking that are on the tests, the better they’ll do. And private, wealthier schools offer much more exposure.

My mother teaches in an underserved, underperforming school in Washington Heights. I find it offensive that anyone could say “the school doesn’t make the kid – the kid makes use of the school.” Sometimes there’s very little to make use of.

This post is one of the most outrageously ill-informed things I’ve read on this blog. Where’s Johanna when we need her?

SATs as a measure of pre-existing talent (which i will interpret as intelligence)? Laughable at best. There are studies that have been done that show standardized tests are precise, but questions the accuracy. The fact that there are techniques/strategies, outside of knowledge and critical thinking, that increases your score hints at the flaws in the test. Basically, if you can’t guarantee that your are accurately measuring talent, then what is it measuring? And by using this as the starting point brings everything else into question because this is the premise they built their argument on.

The authors’ substantiations make sense on the surface. But when you question the assumptions and generalizations made, their argument falls apart. I applaud their efforts in the attempt to quantify something so abstract, but it’s lacking in many ways. Maybe the next attempt will be better.

But in the end, you summed it up nicely. “It’s not the school, it’s the student.” Right with you on that one Trent.