Why did you chose your University/Vocational School/etc. for post-high school?

[Greg]

I was reading the post on here about expensive colleges and it got me thinking, why did people choose the places they themselves went to or are sending their kids to?

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=4

As for myself, I went to Penn State for my Undergrad for Mechanical Engineering. I actually went to a branch campus for my first two years at Penn State-Berks Campus because it was an easier stepping stone because it was only an hour away from home and I could drive home if needed. I also went to a branch campus first because my father also went to Penn State and went to a local branch campus first. I worked on undergrad research there with a mathematics professor, so I could still get research experience from a smaller school (2400 kids). My biggest class was Calculus 1 there which had in the beginning of the semester probably around 100 kids and by the end about 50. I appreciated having the lower student/professor ratio so I could get more one-on-one interaction if I had questions on my studies.

I then went to main campus at Penn State at University Park and my biggest class there was 300 kids my junior year for Machine Design. I still got more research experience there with a professor and the experience was great. I also loved how big my school was because it then provides a very large alumni base in the future for name recognition that the person interviewing me for a job has probably know a Penn State graduate at some time in their career. My biggest complaint there (which lead to the place I went to grad school), was that snow lays up there for months, and it has a very overcast sky, so weather-wise it was very depressing. I also tended to wear out the back of my shoes so I'd have water soak up in there if I didn't walk on my toes, also the campus was quite expansive so I would have to bike to a lot of places to get to class.

I then applied to and got accepted to a few grad schools for my masters in Mechanical Engineering. I chose the best school from a U.S. News ranking I could get into while also looking at the weather of the place I'd be going to. I chose Georgia Tech for grad school because of the large engineering alumni base,  the large amount of engineering research there, and the weather of Atlanta (which is great during the winter).

I was very happy with my choices of schools and the reasoning of why I chose them. Just wondering what others' reasonings are for why they did what they did or what they are currently doing.

[Gosso]

I chose to go to a more prestigious school because it made me feel superior to my peers.  Looking back, I should have gone to the local University and saved myself $60,000.  And for something like Engineering, it doesn't really matter how prestigious the school is...as long as it's respectable.

I also might have enjoyed myself more from being around "normal" people, rather than the rich preppy kids.  Although I still met lots of great people, but we seemed to be a minority.

[FarmerD]

I then went to main campus at Penn State at University Park and my biggest class there was 300 kids my junior year for Machine Design. I

Eeeeck!  I still have nightmares about Machine Design.  For those unfamiliar, you need to have a working knowledge of electrical circuit theory, thermodynamics, statics and dynamics, as well as advanced calculus (lots of 2nd and 3rd order LaPlace transforms).

BTW I got my Mech Eng degree at a large state university.  Decision was pretty easy for me since I got a 1 year Boad of Regents scholarship.  The next 4 years I worked my way through school.  I'm kind of an anomoly since I graduated with no debt and actually has some money saved from my job.   

[Gosso]

Pugchief,

It is true that alumni prefer to hire from their alma mater...that's how I got my current job.  This means that some companies will have a bias towards certain schools.  But as long as the school is producing graduates that move into managerial positions then it seems this bias would be somewhat neutral throughout reasonably respectable school.

[Pointedstick]

I decided to attend a liberal arts school because I thought I was bad at math. My parents encouraged me to look at only the priciest New England private schools, and I eventually settled on their alma mater because I didn't have the test scores and grades to be admitted to a better school. My parents, who were not at all rich (they attended the school when it cost 1/20 as much) made the mistake of scrimping and saving to sock away a lot of money, so the school simply took all of it, though it still wasn't enough and I graduated with debt anyway.

Once I got there, I realized that I was actually quite good at math, and that it was just my weird high school where everyone was a math genius and made me feel dumb. After taking a few liberal arts classes that were absolutely valueless, and realizing that I had nothing in common with 90% of the student body, I quickly gravitated to computer science, which made sense because I was already a big computer nerd. The CS department was so small that a second professor had only just been hired that year! I finally understood how limiting it is to change your plans at a small school that may seriously neglect or even omit entire departments. But by that point I had met my now-wife and we had decided to get married, which was probably one of the smartest things I did at that school!

Looking back, I'm ashamed and appalled by how stupid I was throughout the entire college process. I let my parents railroad me through the college selection and application process, chose my school for negative rather than positive reasons, didn't give any thought to the cost, and in my senior year foolishly decided to try a communal living experiment that resulted in me losing almost all my friends right after graduation. Things worked out in the end because I got a Real Job in my junior year that acted as a springboard for my career, and my wife stuck with me and we're happily married! My experiment with small-scale communism and the econ classes I took permanently turned me off of leftism, too, so that's a plus I suppose.

I'm struck by how pointless college was for me. Meeting my future wife is awesome, but it was totally random, and either of us could have easily gone (and almost did go) to schools that fit us better. And I got my first real job without even saying that I was a CS student. I cost my parents the results of more than two decades of diligent saving, but graduated with debt anyway. And to top it all off, my degree is an albatross around my neck since it's from a liberal arts school and I've had to repeatedly defend its value to interviewers and peers who went to better schools and got real CS educations. I thank my lucky stars that I'm in an industry where nobody cares about your degree once you have a few years' experience under your belt.

Though I'm very happy where I am now, I wish I hadn't chosen such a rocky road to get there. But I guess that's life, isn't it?

[MachineGhost]

I also might have enjoyed myself more from being around "normal" people, rather than the rich preppy kids.  Although I still met lots of great people, but we seemed to be a minority.

What is wrong with rich preppy kids?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[MachineGhost]

Again, I have to ask: what happens to all the other students in these liberal arts colleges that don't "get a clue"?  What happens to them after graduation with their relatively useless degrees?

[Pointedstick]

Again, I have to ask: what happens to all the other students in these liberal arts colleges that don't "get a clue"?  What happens to them after graduation with their relatively useless degrees?

Unemployment and underemployment. Many get jobs at coffee shops and call centers, some move back in with parents, a few land coveted positions as copywriters, editors, or paid bloggers. A lot go to grad school to delay the inevitable day of reckoning. This is all from personal observations of what my graduating class went onto, by the way.

So in other words, all they got from their educations was a four years in a fun collegiate setting, and probably a lot of debt. This doesn't describe every liberal arts grad, but in my experience, it describes a shockingly, depressingly large proportion.

[Gosso]

I also might have enjoyed myself more from being around "normal" people, rather than the rich preppy kids.  Although I still met lots of great people, but we seemed to be a minority.

What is wrong with rich preppy kids?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, they were just different from what I was accustomed to.  They seemed to carry a sense of arrogance that I couldn't match...but that will probably help propel them in their careers, so kudos to them.

[Greg]

I look at liberal arts degrees the same as I look at the college experience in general. PointedStick has spoken about this before in not everyone needs to go to college for what they might want to do. I went because I'd have a lot of trouble landing an engineering job without one.

My sister got a liberal arts degree (dual major in sculpture and philosophy) from Syracuse University and found out she learned much more while working up at a Food Co-op up there. Her and her husband she met up there then decided what was best for them was to go back to a technical school so she went to a Motorcycle and Scooter Repair school. They now own a small business with a couple of people working for them up in Rhode Island. I'm very happy for my sister and brother-in-law that they are having success but it looks as though her initial Bachelor's of Arts didn't really do much for her other than "the experience".

[Pointedstick]

I think 1NV35T0R is right to describe a liberal arts education as "an experience". It can be a really wonderful experience, but you shouldn't make the mistake of confusing it with an investment, which is what most people think of college. It's hard to consider learning basic history, philosophy, and literature as any kind of investment in your future unless you plan to teach those subjects as your own career.

That's not to say these aren't worthwhile subjects to study (they are), but you're probably not going to find someone willing to pay you to put them into practice. Another thing liberal arts schools don't like you to know is that you really don't need to go to college to learn these things. A public library has every bit as much information in it available to the motivated learner. With the advent of the internet, that informational availability has multiplied a hundredfold. What's the point of learning about Descartes and Marx in a classroom setting when 99% of the information is available for free to anyone who bothers to seek it out?

The degree to which you can educate yourself is amazing!

[Greg]

I think 1NV35T0R is right to describe a liberal arts education as "an experience". It can be a really wonderful experience, but you shouldn't make the mistake of confusing it with an investment, which is what most people think of college. It's hard to consider learning basic history, philosophy, and literature as any kind of investment in your future unless you plan to teach those subjects as your own career.

That's not to say these aren't worthwhile subjects to study (they are), but you're probably not going to find someone willing to pay you to put them into practice. Another thing liberal arts schools don't like you to know is that you really don't need to go to college to learn these things. A public library has every bit as much information in it available to the motivated learner. With the advent of the internet, that informational availability has multiplied a hundredfold. What's the point of learning about Descartes and Marx in a classroom setting with 99% of the information is available for free to anyone who bothers to seek it out?

The degree to which you can educate yourself is amazing!

I'd certainly agree with you on self-education, or being didactic, but some people perhaps want to pay to have someone else push them towards education. Kinda like moving from self-motivation to do something to being held responsible if you don't do it. That being said, I think that's a very expensive way to change your source of motivation.

[Pointedstick]

I'd certainly agree with you on self-education, or being didactic, but some people perhaps want to pay to have someone else push them towards education. Kinda like moving from self-motivation to do something to being held responsible if you don't do it.

I would argue that's the parents' responsibility. If your 18 year-old isn't self-motivated, it's likely that college is just going to be an expensive waste of time. There are so many pleasurable distractions in the collegiate environment (beer, drugs, sex, parties, video games, rampant media piracy, cool new friends, lack of parental oversight) that someone without their eye on the ball can easily blow off the academics, as so many of my classmates did.

I think it's important not to overestimate how little oversight and feet-to-the-fire-holding a modern liberal arts education actually involves. Why would there be more? A liberal arts degree is a luxury good, and its tuition money funds the other departments! The colleges aren't dumb. My experience with the liberal arts showed me that deadlines can be flexible with enough cajoling, that poor reasoning can be obscured with emotional appeals to the professor's political bias, and that there are never any direct consequences for wasting entire semesters in useless classes that teach you what you could have learned in a few hours on Wikipedia (until you graduate, that is…). I was forced to take several such classes, and dropped out of many more once I came to my senses and realized their uselessness.

A more rigorous degree will present more accountability, for sure, but may be too challenging for an unmotivated student. Really, for a kid who doesn't care, I would prescribe a job, not a college education. Maybe that can come later once they can appreciate the opportunities presented to them!

[rhymenocerous]

I made several mistakes when choosing a college that I wish I could now correct.  First, I was a bit of a snob, and would only really consider the most prestigious schools.  I ended up choosing an Ivy League school, but I found that the atmosphere was so cut-throat in the math/sciences that I had a miserable time and struggled to do well.  I often wonder if I might have done better at a second tier school that might not have been quite so rigorous, but had a better atmosphere.  All of those really competitive jobs at Goldman, McKinsey, and Google that recruit from certain schools heavily weight your GPA, so it doesn't help if you go to a good school, but do poorly.  

Also, I gave absolutely no consideration to cost.  I wish my parents would have sat me down and explained how long it would take to repay loans and the different salaries you could expect from different degrees/careers.  Actually, I think my dad tried to have my conversation with me, but I would have none of it.  I was only concerned with purely intellectual pursuits, like uncovering the mysteries of the universe (no joke).  I detested anything that was "applied" or "practical."  I wish he had tried harder, but I was pretty stubborn.  I guess it is something you just need to learn on your own.  I probably could have gotten some generous scholarships to several tier 2 schools, although the more prestigious schools do tend to have larger endowments.  Still, the only reason I was able to graduate with relatively little debt was due to an inheritance.

In sum, the most important lesson for me to learn was humility.

[Greg]

In sum, the most important lesson for me to learn was humility.

Interesting story. And I think this quote is something many if not all of us need to grasp. The Permanent Portfolio itself is a step in the correct direct I believe because it takes a humble approach of saying I do not know where the economy will go so I will just maintain a balanced approach.

[notsheigetz]

When I got out of the Navy in 1970 I applied for unemployment benefits. A requirement at the time was that you had to take an aptitude test and be willing to accept training in a program sponsored by the federal government (under an act called M.D.T.A.) . Nothing looked that interesting to me but I checked "Computer Peripheral Equipment Operator" for lack of any better choices (the word computer was only starting to enter the lexicon by the way).

I don't recall the exact nature of the test but I remember it was some kind of physical puzzle putting pieces in place in accordance with some logical instructions that were given beforehand. There were about ten of us sitting around a table when they hit the stop watch and told us to begin. I had already solved it in my head and when he said go I went bang, bang, bang, with my pieces and was all done while everyone else was staring clueless at the table wondering what to do.

Thus began my very successful career as a software engineer. So I guess maybe the government performs a useful function sometimes.