Most expensive colleges

[WiseOne]

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/pf/college ... ges/1.html

Interestingly, there does not seem to be much correlation between quality of education/institutional reputation and cost.  I would consider at most two colleges on this list to be deserving of the high tuition.  Nearly all the top tier schools (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, MIT) are conspicuous by their absence.  And I'm thoroughly ashamed of the presence of one of the universities on the list - at the time I attended, it was  referred to as the "poor man's Ivy League" school and the tuition bill was about half that of the Ivies.  I doubt the education quality has gotten that much better. 

[Pointedstick]

Those schools are status symbols for parents whose kids weren't good enough to get into Harvard or Yale. Don't send your kids there. If they're good enough to be accepted at any of those, they're good enough to go to a place 99% as good that will be thrilled to have them, and they'll likely be offered a free ride.

[BearBones]

Those schools are status symbols for parents whose kids weren't good enough to get into Harvard or Yale. Don't send your kids there. If they're good enough to be accepted at any of those, they're good enough to go to a place 99% as good that will be thrilled to have them, and they'll likely be offered a free ride.

One of my kids is at Dartmouth, choosing this over Harvard and Yale and, yes, choosing this over the state school with a free ride. I have no regrets. You are entitled to you opinion but I, for one, have no regrets. I was not going to tell my daughter that she has to go to a state school so that I can live a more luxurious life or retire earlier. In my opinion, if you are going to have children, you give them the best education you can afford. And that does not invariably mean only 1 or 2 Ivy league schools.

[stone]

Bear Bones, what made Dartmouth attractive for your daughter? My better half went to Cambridge University in the UK and the small tutor groups they have there with world class researchers do sound a fantastic opportunity (it was all totally free for UK students then as well). Is Dartmouth like that?

[BearBones]

Bear Bones, what made Dartmouth attractive for your daughter? My better half went to Cambridge University in the UK and the small tutor groups they have there with world class researchers do sound a fantastic opportunity (it was all totally free for UK students then as well). Is Dartmouth like that?

Yes, it is smallest of Ivy's and is very undergraduate focused. My understanding is that places like Harvard tend to be more focused on the graduate programs. Hopefully this will translate into more of a close knit and personal experience at Dartmouth, such as what you have described at Cambridge. It is also in the beautiful mountains of NH, a big negative for city lovers, but a boon for those who enjoy the outdoors (e.g., it has its own ski area).

[MachineGhost]

Interestingly, there does not seem to be much correlation between quality of education/institutional reputation and cost.  I would consider at most two colleges on this list to be deserving of the high tuition.  Nearly all the top tier schools (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, MIT) are conspicuous by their absence.  And I'm thoroughly ashamed of the presence of one of the universities on the list - at the time I attended, it was  referred to as the "poor man's Ivy League" school and the tuition bill was about half that of the Ivies.  I doubt the education quality has gotten that much better. 

Interesting that the vast majority are liberal arts colleges.  Why pay so much for such a useless degree?  What does it give a graduate?

[stone]

Interestingly, there does not seem to be much correlation between quality of education/institutional reputation and cost.  I would consider at most two colleges on this list to be deserving of the high tuition.  Nearly all the top tier schools (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, MIT) are conspicuous by their absence.  And I'm thoroughly ashamed of the presence of one of the universities on the list - at the time I attended, it was  referred to as the "poor man's Ivy League" school and the tuition bill was about half that of the Ivies.  I doubt the education quality has gotten that much better. 

Interesting that the vast majority are liberal arts colleges.  Why pay so much for such a useless degree?  What does it give a graduate?

I don't think liberal arts degrees exist in the UK. Are they about learning scholarship as a skill in its own right?

I guess your question goes to the heart of what teaching is for. In principle anyone could just read up and learn anything on their own. I do think people benefit from teaching though. People benefit from being surrounded by other people who are learning and bouncing off each other. A good teacher can direct learning towards the crucial points, put people back on track and inspire/bully them to learn. It is stunning how  groups of people sometimes push understanding or creativity forward when interacting together.
Might some of the point of an education be to develop the self belief that anything can be learnt and the self criticism to be able to tell when something isn't adequately understood?

[stone]

I guess for any students wanting to study medicine (or related stuff) in the USA, summer undergraduate projects such as offered in http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/ would be an amazing opportunity.

[BearBones]

Interesting that the vast majority are liberal arts colleges.  Why pay so much for such a useless degree?  What does it give a graduate?

Totally agree. Just crony capitalists brainwashing our youth. If I were to do it all over, I would forgo the expense and just use the Google search bar...

[WiseOne]

Interesting that the vast majority are liberal arts colleges.  Why pay so much for such a useless degree?  What does it give a graduate?

Totally agree. Just crony capitalists brainwashing our youth. If I were to do it all over, I would forgo the expense and just use the Google search bar...

I'll second that.  Going to college without a firm direction in mind is an unaffordable luxury.

Regarding the difference between undergrad and graduate focused schools...I'm not sure Dartmouth is so different because the math at all colleges is the same.  The only sources of income for a university are federal research grant overheads, the Dean's tax on clinical revenues if there is an attached medical college, tuition, and gifts/endowment.  Therefore, universities don't really want faculty members to waste time teaching, except for the bare minimum required to churn students through.  They want you out there getting NSF, NIH, and DARPA money, and doing cool research that attracts media attention.  State and foundation grants, incidentally, are worthless because they don't pay overheads.

In order to focus on teaching, a college has to underpay its professors, give them high teaching loads, and charge a lot of tuition.  Those things aren't terribly conducive to good environments either.  Lest you think that doesn't happen, a friend of mine gave up a job as a physics professor several years ago because he got tired of earning $25K/year, and retooled as a biomedical researcher.  That was probably a loss for the college in question, because he's a great teacher.

[BearBones]

Totally agree. Just crony capitalists brainwashing our youth. If I were to do it all over, I would forgo the expense and just use the Google search bar...

I'll second that.  Going to college without a firm direction in mind is an unaffordable luxury.

I was being facetious, BTW.  I do not see any difference between going to college with no firm direction in mind and going to high school with the same intent. In fact, I discourage it with my kids, since it frequently locks you into a track before getting a broad education and discovering that which truly interests and inspires you. In my parents generation, finishing high school was an expensive and, often, very frivolous expense. The cost was lost productivity on the farm. But, most of the time, it was beneficial for the student/child, since it was the one sure way off of the farm and into a higher paying career.

So, we are just talking about opinions and not facts here, of course, so I do not want to get into a long, drawn out argument. But, IYO, where do you see that education ("knowledge for its own sake," for the purpose of becoming well rounded, contemplative, socialized/cultured and, perhaps most importantly, adaptable) and trade schooling begins?

And, BTW, regarding Dartmouth or any other school with a relative sparsity of grad students, another way for the University to bring in revenue is to use the undergrads in helping the professors with their research. In many instances, this can be a very beneficial experience. In fact, most of the schools (and students) that do this brag about it. Thoughts?

[Pointedstick]

I respect your opinion, too, BearBones. In fact, you're certainly more qualified than I on this subject since you actually have a kid in college and are putting down real money that you worked hard to earn. You deserve great respect for putting your money where your mouth is and supporting your children so admirably!

But my perspective is actually generationally closer to your daughter's, since I only just graduated in 2009, and in fact, I graduated from the #1 school on that list--Sarah Lawrence College (short story: don't send your kids there). My opinion stems from being the recipient of parental college savings at one of the top money sucker schools and seeing firsthand just how rigged the entire system is.

What I notice most of all from comparing my friends' college experiences is how little the amount we or our parents paid, or which school we went to, correlate at all with future employment OR "well-roundedness". My high school friend who got a free ride at Brandeis (forgoing Harvard) is doing great and is wise beyond his years. Several of my high school friends who went to state schools have gone on to pursue lucrative careers and demonstrate great maturity and wisdom, but one of them is languishing, as is another friendwho went to a private pseudo-ivy entirely paid for by his parents. Of my college peers, nearly all of them are in debt up to their eyeballs, and many have not found meaningful work beyond what a high school diploma and a good attitude will get you. The distribution seems totally random.

College is a wonderful experience, but I think one of the biggest lies perpetuated on the American people by the higher education industry is the idea that there is a real difference in the quality of an education you will receive at one school compared to another. Nearly all schools provide a variety of interesting and challenging classes in all manner of subjects, and rich, intellectually stimulating environments that mature and motivated students will grow and excel within. The vast majority of the difference originates in the student, not the school.

Is there a real difference between the school with the 8,000,000 book library, and the one with the 4,000,000 book library? Maybe a small one, but is that difference worth potentially tens of thousands of dollars? I posit that if your child is bright and motivated, they will find a way to succeed at either one.

[WiseOne]

And, BTW, regarding Dartmouth or any other school with a relative sparsity of grad students, another way for the University to bring in revenue is to use the undergrads in helping the professors with their research. In many instances, this can be a very beneficial experience. In fact, most of the schools (and students) that do this brag about it. Thoughts?

Undergraduate involvement in research happens everywhere - I've experienced this from both sides (as an undergrad and now on the professor side).  It's a great enrichment for undergrad education, and students can certainly be a real help.  Not to mention that it's just so rewarding to take on a student and introduce them to something that they'd never get to experience in a classroom.

The catch is that students can't be depended on for a serious research project.  They're involved for only short stretches of time, and there's nothing stopping them from quitting halfway through the summer and spending the rest of the time at the beach.  I tend to pair them up with postdoctoral fellows or give them small bits of work that aren't too critical.  So the long answer to your question is that no, undergrads can't really help you get funding.  And obviously, there's just going to be more and cooler research happening at places with a big focus on research, thus more opportunities to get involved.  I expect there's no shortage of potential research projects for your daughter at Dartmouth.

 

[BearBones]

I respect your opinion, too, BearBones...
But my perspective...

PS, I do not disagree with any of the points that you or WiseOne have made. Just trying to look at this from both sides. Four points:

1. The only way I can afford to send 2 kids to private schools with no assistance is that I am doing well enough financially. And I went to a state school (albeit one of the best in US). I kind of got lucky, and things would probably not have played out so well for me if I were in your generation. But it supports your point to a degree.
2. Having said that, I can definitely see the difference b/w what I got and what my daughter has. If nothing else, she is surrounded by more motivated, bright peers than I was. In fact, I would argue that this is the primary difference in the education b/w the highly competitive schools and the rest. Kind of crazy to think that I am paying for that!
3. I have not spent too much time looking at the numbers (since it makes me nauseated too), but I suspect the difference in costs between most of the good private colleges is not profound. Public schools are another story.
4. If between Dartmouth and a good state school, I would definitely favor the latter if my children had to cover full tuition with student loans. Just not worth graduating with that much of a liability on your shoulders unless you are damn sure of a lucrative career.

[stone]

I guess exclusivity is what makes expensive real estate expensive too. When people pay to have a house in an exclusive district, what they are mostly paying for is to have well off neighbours.

[FarmerD]

I think one of the biggest lies perpetuated on the American people by the higher education industry is the idea that there is a real difference in the quality of an education you will receive at one school compared to another. Nearly all schools provide a variety of interesting and challenging classes in all manner of subjects, and rich, intellectually stimulating environments that mature and motivated students will grow and excel within. The vast majority of the difference originates in the student, not the school.

Is there a real difference between the school with the 8,000,000 book library, and the one with the 4,000,000 book library? Maybe a small one, but is that difference worth potentially tens of thousands of dollars? I posit that if your child is bright and motivated, they will find a way to succeed at either one.

Exactly.  If you compare engineering schools, you find they use basically the same textbooks and cover the same material to meet accreditation standards.  The only reason some engineering schools are rated higher than others is the amount of research dollars spent there which, of course, doesn't impact undergraduates in any way.  Trying to claim some school is "better" because they have better instructors is a purely subjective analysis. 

Some schools of course have influential alumni and graduating students from prestige schools use those connections to land top jobs but that is more a reflection of their socioeconomic class rather than the quality of the school itself.