> It makes absolute sense to go $250k in debt for an MIT or Harvard degree
No it doesn't? I think we should stop putting schools on a pedestal because of their name. I admire some of the research and work that comes out of those schools, but in the end their degrees are no better or worse than other schools' (regarding undergraduate, I can't speak for graduate).
The only differences come down to network and academic history. If you're justifying that level of debt purely on those two criteria, then I understand that's the value those things mean to you -- and that's okay. Personally, that's not worth it to me. I'm not sure there's "absolute sense" here.
There can be an "absolute sense" from a financial perspective. For better or worse, having a degree from Harvard/Stanford/MIT can open a number of doors that may be otherwise shut. Doors which can be very financially lucrative.
For example, suppose you want to work in finance/law. Most prestigious firms place a very high premium on having a degree from a top university, and pay extremely generously if you get your foot in the door. In these contexts, the $250k investment on your college will easily pay for itself within 10 years.
Conversely, suppose you're trying to break into a field that's extremely hard to crack (writing?). In such situations, you'll need every edge you can get, and having a great network or an eye-catching degree in your resume can make the difference between you getting a toe-hold and you calling it quits.
To be sure, it certainly is very context dependent. Getting a cheap Bachelor's degree from a public university, and a Master's degree from a brand name university, might be a good way to get the best of both worlds. In general though, anyone who's smart enough to get admission into Harvard/Stanford is likely going to make multiple millions of dollars over the course of their lifetime. Given this baseline, investing 250k for a top-notch education/network/resume certainly seems well worth it.
Can and will pay off is not exactly the same thing. To break even on an extra 100k within 10 years of graduating, the pre-tax premium on your salary needs to $1.5k -$2k on gross monthly salary. I wouldn't call that a brilliant investment even if it was a lot more certain than it is in reality.
But importantly, there are lot of potential loss scenarios. The student could drop out, get sick at some point in the next 15 years. They could decide they don't want to be a lawyer, get pregnant, go to jail. Anything that gets them off a high earning path becomes a disaster with that kind of debt.
A debt burden like this taken on by young people seems to me to be incompatible with the concept of free society. I can't understand how Americans tolerate it. In most countries, I think the public outcry would be too great.
> "To break even on an extra 100k within 10 years of graduating"
Why are you limiting yourself to a 10 year window? The average career last 30+ years. Over a time period that long, it's much easier to recoup the initial investment costs.
> "The student could drop out... get pregnant, go to jail"
Ironically, many of these dangers are much more likely to occur at non-elite universities, due to peer-influence and peer-pressure. This is actually a great reason to attend elite universities where you'll be ensconced in a ivory-tower-bubble.
> "A debt burden like this taken on by young people seems to me to be incompatible with the concept of free society."
I guess you and I define freedom differently. A society where only the ultra-wealthy attend elite universities, doesn't sound nearly as free to me. Allowing extremely bright middle-class kids to invest $0.25M in their education, so that they can optimize for their millions of dollars of lifetime earnings, as well as get the education they've dreamed of, sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Would I prefer it if elite schools like Harvard weren't so damn expensive? Of course. But the current situation still sounds far better than getting rid of student loans entirely.
Isn't admittance to these schools largely oriented towards wealth/past wealth, and the preference in those "prestigious" schools just to make sure that only wealthy families get those jobs?
In that case, if it's a meaningful amount of money to you, it's probably not worth the investment because those firms will still look at you poorly
I'd add to your comment that from what I've heard some of the traditionally elite universities such as Harvard/Yale/Stanford have very generous financial aid for lower income students. And while I don't have the exact numbers handy, if I remember correctly their definition of lower income extended into the $100k+ household income range.
Again, this is anecdotal, but I have a good friend who was accepted to both Berkeley and Stanford, among a host of other schools but those two were his top choices, as an undergrad transfer from a community college. He grew up extremely poor, not HN's definition of poor as in he can't afford a SFH in Noe, but poor as in relying on food stamps/section 8 with parents who never even graduated high school. He was leaning towards Cal but ultimately the financial aid package that Stanford gave him was too good to turn down. He will graduate with close to zero debt or loans.
Much as we like to decry the high cost of university, there is still a lot of value there for some. Others don't need it and can study law, or computer programming, on their own. Good on them. They prove themselves in other ways, like the bankrobber who later became a Georgetown law professor [1]
More bribes aren't going to make life any easier and definitely are not the solution to the high cost of university ;-)
Huge disclaimer here, I have never attended any undergraduate university so everything I say here is second hand and anecdotal.
With that out of the way, I was under the impression that there are some rather significant differences in the depth, breadth, and rigor between courses of study even at the undergrad level, at least in certain majors. For example, I've often heard that Harvard's undergrad math course is considered especially challenging. Is it really the case that an undergrad education at a place like MIT in math/physics, or some other STEM field, is without any differentiation from a similar major at Tufts or BU? I find that somewhat hard to believe.
I'm sure there are brilliant students at less prestigious institutions, as I'm sure there are not so brilliant ones even at places like MIT, but I would expect an undergrad math class at MIT would be somewhat different than one at BU. Am I wrong here?
On occasion I work with a rather brilliant engineer from Caltech and in talking with her she has relayed to me that one of the unique aspects of Caltech's undergrad education is that all students, regardless of major, must take a certain number of college level math and physics courses. That alone seems like a pretty big differentiator to me.
This isn't to say that we as a society don't perhaps put too much emphasis on the notoriety of big name schools, but I still find it somewhat unlikely that there really is zero difference in the degrees offered. Of course, I'm very often wrong so there's that.
Firstly, that Caltech requires all students to undertake a certain number of math and physics courses seems to align with, at least, the name of the institution.
Secondly, regarding your comment "I find that somewhat hard to believe", so long as everyone keeps believing that then the cost value of the reputation and network probably justify the fees. It's part of their brand image. Marketing.
The proof is in then numbers though: do reputable university graduates discover more valuable insights more often, do they earn more, and live longer healthier happier lives? Is the net benefit to society worth the cost?
I'd argue it's all very difficult to quantify in the final analysis.
> The only differences come down to network and academic history.
Yes, indeed. With a degree from a top university, you are almost guaranteed an A average and can go straight to Wall Street or into other potentially super-lucrative professions. Not every wants that, and there are other paths to get there, but if that's what you want, this is by far the easiest way.
I'd say one big difference is that in places like MIT you have an option to volunteer on awesome research projects, working under top-notch researchers. This goes a long way towards securing a entry to a top PhD program later, if that's your thing.
No it doesn't? I think we should stop putting schools on a pedestal because of their name. I admire some of the research and work that comes out of those schools, but in the end their degrees are no better or worse than other schools' (regarding undergraduate, I can't speak for graduate).
The only differences come down to network and academic history. If you're justifying that level of debt purely on those two criteria, then I understand that's the value those things mean to you -- and that's okay. Personally, that's not worth it to me. I'm not sure there's "absolute sense" here.