Very High Net Worth, elite private or “good” public

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

It also occurs to me that even HNW Bogleheads would not be comfortable with the decidedly non-BH values that are more prevalent among students and parents in "elite privates," but that seems self-evident.

Not self-evident at all, please enlighten us on what you see these non-BH values to be.

Is this a real question? At the risk of over-simplifying, I'll just refer to the "LBYM" vs. "keeping up with the Joneses" divide and leave it at, so as not to derail the discussion here.

Absolutely a real question, and I still don’t understand what LBYM vs LBAM have to do with public vs private schooling.

In my Silicon Valley milieu, private school families are more likely to LBYM if only because their means are so high. Whereas public school parents tend to live at their means because they bring in less income.

[GCD]

Deleted.

[international001]

I decided public, based on:

- research shows that there is little difference in going public vs private in life salary outcomes (when you control for everything else)
- I don't know if it should matter for the point above, but private teachers are often paid less than public ones (that often have better resumes). And they work for private schools only if they cannot work for public. My guess is that teachers are motivated regardless when they find a good student population.
- research shows that kids will acquire some of the personality treats of their peers. Looking around, I think I preferred educated hardworking people with time for their children than silver-spoon kids often with dysfunctional families, where kids often start playing with drugs in high school. This may be just my experience, but may be different in other areas. So for me the best are a public school with high income/education population.

[staythecourse]

- research shows that there is little difference in going public vs private in life salary outcomes (when you control for everything else)

This was one of my big reasons of us doing public. IF private can guarantee better pre college education or better test scores or better college acceptances or better starting earnings or better lifetime earnings I would give them TWICE the money they are asking. What they are asking is GUARANTEED a larger outlay then public (free) with no substance they produce much better returns.

It is interesting folks on this site who are so against active management because there is not guarantee of better returns despite higher costs are so willing to give money to folks who have NOT shown any data they can produce better return.

The funnies thing was hearing my question from the back of EVERY school forum when we were looking as to why I should pick their school and give them money unless they can show me they produce better students. The crickets in the air from them AND the fellow audience members were deafening yet they still have no problem filling their spots.

Now there are plenty of excellent private schools who do produce great results, but then again they are usually very selective so it is still a nature vs. nuture thing.

Good luck.

[TomatoTomahto]

I don't know if it should matter for the point above, but private teachers are often paid less than public ones (that often have better resumes). And they work for private schools only if they cannot work for public.

I have to disagree. My kids’ teachers in high school were often people who had had successful careers before they decided to become teachers. My kids had one science teacher that had had a successful career at Bell labs, with many patents to his name, had a physics teacher who had a successful career on Wall Street and wanted to “give back,” had an English teacher who had recently graduated from Harvard with honors.

These teachers valued the student engagement at the private and that they wouldn’t be saddled with kids who didn’t want to be there. I heard that two teachers donated their salaries back to the school, but I don’t have verification. The physics teacher in particular was exceptional, much more conservative politically than my son, and helped our son learn to debate heartfelt views as a gentleman, with respect for opposing views. He also lent my son his college math books, and gave him confidence in his developing math skills. Every kid should have such an inspirational teacher.

[international001]

You are still totally missing the point, the heritable human traits that were being evaluated in all the studies analyzed for that meta are not what Bacchus was talking about.

"Investigated traits were manually classified using the chapter and subchapter levels of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10)."

They were analyzing risk for disabilities, chronic disease, and other health problems. It is an investigation of nature vs. nurture in regards to physical and psychological health outcomes. Correct me if I am wrong, but this thread (and Bacchus' comment) is about educational and career success. That is a totally different topic of discussion.

There is some related research out there (ie. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0023-z and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0019-8 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29911926), but it is hardly conclusive of anything.

Excuse my ignorance. How it's hardly conclusive.. If they are well done at least they are suggestive
For instance: 'Differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them'

It's mind blowing. So teachers, shared environment, non-shared environment... doesn't account for anything?

[stoptothink]

I don't know if it should matter for the point above, but private teachers are often paid less than public ones (that often have better resumes). And they work for private schools only if they cannot work for public.

I have to disagree. My kids’ teachers in high school were often people who had had successful careers before they decided to become teachers. My kids had one science teacher that had had a successful career at Bell labs, with many patents to his name, had a physics teacher who had a successful career on Wall Street and wanted to “give back,” had an English teacher who had recently graduated from Harvard with honors.

There are only so many successful individuals who have any interest in working for (usually less than public school) wages teaching kids. At very expensive elite private schools, maybe (I have no point of reference), at the run-of-the-mill private, you really have no idea what you are getting. I have a neighbor who doesn't even have a high school diploma (GED) and has spent about as much time on college campuses as my 7yr old, but he is a "technology" teacher at the #3 rated private school in my state (according to Niche). Prior to teaching he was the IT help desk guy at a local small business. He may be a fantastic teacher, I have no way of knowing, but this is an individual who actually has less formal education than many of his students and is 5+ years of training from even being considered for work in a public school.

Generalizations are pointless, do you own research about your own situation. I would bet my life that your experience of "teachers in high school were often people who had had successful careers before they decided to become teachers" is very far from the norm at the huge majority of private schools. If it was normal at the school your children attended, well, that is great for you and them.

[stoptothink]

You are still totally missing the point, the heritable human traits that were being evaluated in all the studies analyzed for that meta are not what Bacchus was talking about.

"Investigated traits were manually classified using the chapter and subchapter levels of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10)."

They were analyzing risk for disabilities, chronic disease, and other health problems. It is an investigation of nature vs. nurture in regards to physical and psychological health outcomes. Correct me if I am wrong, but this thread (and Bacchus' comment) is about educational and career success. That is a totally different topic of discussion.

There is some related research out there (ie. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0023-z and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0019-8 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29911926), but it is hardly conclusive of anything.

Excuse my ignorance. How it's hardly conclusive.. If they are well done at least they are suggestive
For instance: 'Differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them'

It's mind blowing. So teachers, shared environment, non-shared environment... doesn't account for anything?

Read the entire exchange. You are making a point about something that I wasn't talking about. Bluebolt referenced a study which was in no way related to the discussion.

[Matahari]

It also occurs to me that even HNW Bogleheads would not be comfortable with the decidedly non-BH values that are more prevalent among students and parents in "elite privates," but that seems self-evident.

Not self-evident at all, please enlighten us on what you see these non-BH values to be.

Is this a real question? At the risk of over-simplifying, I'll just refer to the "LBYM" vs. "keeping up with the Joneses" divide and leave it at, so as not to derail the discussion here.

And you think one exists at public and the other at privates? Really?
We lived in an affluent town, and the public school parents were much more status conscious. I’m not saying that’s universal, but it existed in our town. .

I don't believe that I said one exists at one and not at the other. That's your reading. You'll note that I spoke of my own experience and observations in my post to the OP. And I made an observation. I don't think it's necessary for me to address each individual's separate experience which, clearly, varies with as many private and public school as there exists in this large country.

OP, I think you understand my meaning.

[Matahari]

It also occurs to me that even HNW Bogleheads would not be comfortable with the decidedly non-BH values that are more prevalent among students and parents in "elite privates," but that seems self-evident.

Not self-evident at all, please enlighten us on what you see these non-BH values to be.

Is this a real question? At the risk of over-simplifying, I'll just refer to the "LBYM" vs. "keeping up with the Joneses" divide and leave it at, so as not to derail the discussion here.

Absolutely a real question, and I still don’t understand what LBYM vs LBAM have to do with public vs private schooling.

In my Silicon Valley milieu, private school families are more likely to LBYM if only because their means are so high. Whereas public school parents tend to live at their means because they bring in less income.

HEDGEFUNDIE, I typed out a lengthy response and thought better of it. It's not a worthy debate to engage in here. Some private school families skrimp and save to send their kids to those schools because their public schools are not good enough. Is that LAYM? Perhaps, but it's not my judgment call because I imagine those parents are doing what's best for their kids. I also know many parents who I suspect have impoverished their retirements to send their kids to K-12 private school and to private colleges. At the same time, I know a number of private school kids here who have received Range Rovers and Porsches for their 16th birthdays -- fine for them, but it's not our scene. I'm sure it has happened in the public HS my child attended but there are myriad other kids there from different walks of like as well.

You do you and I do me, okay? I'm not in Silicon Valley but I know my community well enough to be comfortable with our decision and my observation. Peace out.

[TomatoTomahto]

I would bet my life that your experience of "teachers in high school were often people who had had successful careers before they decided to become teachers" is very far from the norm at the huge majority of private schools. If it was normal at the school your children attended, well, that is great for you and them.

We agree, which is why (at least I think I did) at some point in this thread I asked about how selective the school was, ISEE scores, etc. There are many mediocre private schools. More money doesn’t guarantee a better education. But, I think that the intersection of involved students, teachers who don’t have to teach to the lowest common denominator, teachers who aren’t beholden to a state mandated curriculum, etc., can have a positive results.

I didn’t research the private school OP was referring to, but at first glance it seemed to be a worthwhile place.

[TomatoTomahto]

Never Mind

[randomguy]

I decided public, based on:

- research shows that there is little difference in going public vs private in life salary outcomes (when you control for everything else)
- I don't know if it should matter for the point above, but private teachers are often paid less than public ones (that often have better resumes). And they work for private schools only if they cannot work for public. My guess is that teachers are motivated regardless when they find a good student population.
- research shows that kids will acquire some of the personality treats of their peers. Looking around, I think I preferred educated hardworking people with time for their children than silver-spoon kids often with dysfunctional families, where kids often start playing with drugs in high school. This may be just my experience, but may be different in other areas. So for me the best are a public school with high income/education population.

Do you also prefer the gang joining, drug using, dysfunctional family kids who come from a background that doesn't value education that are in your public school to the kids from educated families that have shown their kids that hard work pays off and who value edcuation?:) Both groups exists. Studies suggest that in general there is much less drug use in private schools. But the private kids can definitely get in trouble and when they do we all like to blame on rich parents:)

Honestly drawing any conclusions about private schools is tough. The difference from 60k boarding schools to 6k catholic schools is pretty darn huge. I have seen arguements either way about if things like boarding schools are good (teach independance) or bad (too soon) and there is probably some self selection (if you can afford to send your troublesome kid away you do:)).

In the end you kid will probably be fine in either place and you have no real way of determining which will be the best fit. Pick the perfect school and you kid makes the wrong friend and your screwed. And obviously the reverse could happen.

[Thegame14]

I know the issue you say isnt the money, but it is alwyas the money. It seems the answer you want is private school, but $30K per child per year for what 12 years, is $360K, if you invest that money in the market for them, by the time they are college grads, they prob have $1M each. is the value of private K-12 worth $1M to them? I dont think so.

how much better school will they get into for that $1M each, for a lot less they can just be on the row crew and get into a good college wiht a donation, wait..... nevermind....

I think the money is better invested for their future in the market, vs private school, I think if a child is smart and works hard, they will do just as well, and their desire/drive/hard work will mean more to their success than private vs public. it isnt like the public is horrible.

I still think you want private school, and you have the money, so do whatever you want, but I wouldnt. But you are smarter than me, you built a business and sold it for $10M, so you are the smart one.

[oldlongbeard]

Send one to private, one to public. Split the third after elementary. Let us know who is more successful in 30 years. Then you'll know which decision was right.
-
-
-
You're right. There is no way to predict it. Nor any way to look back in 30 years, and say it made a difference. Chill out. Encourage your children in what THEY are really interested in learning about. They'll thank you for that..... Even if they take the really expensive education for granted.
Congrats on the net worth.
Regards, Greg in West Mitten

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

I think we should clarify a few things which I think are being confounded in this discussion. There are at least four types of schools being discussed here.

1. “Regular” public school, drawing local students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness
2. “Elite” public school, drawing from an affluent local neighborhood, most students from wealthy backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness but skewed toward the high end
3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness
4. “Elite” private school, requires admissions test, financial aid available, most students at the high end of the academic spectrum

From the OP I believe the two types of schools being considered are #1 and #4. In which case I think the decision is clear. #4 will put the kids in the best possible position for elite professional career tracks.

A few more thoughts on culture. At the very top of the professional world, the ranks are full of people who grew up in environments similar to #2 and (even more so) #4, who are now the gatekeepers into that world. Even in “meritocratic” fields like medicine, interviews are an important part of the entry process, where cultural markers can be quickly identified. Whether or not you like “elite” culture, if you want to give your kids the best chance to enter that world, there is no better way to prepare them than to send them to elite school.

Something I have noticed is that Bogleheads contains a disproportionate number of engineers, for whom culture and background may have been less relevant in their success. So I’m sure my comments will draw criticism. What I will suggest in my defense is this: Those students who are being groomed in the Choates and Harvards of the world will probably not be the ones worried about getting laid off from their technical jobs in their 50s (a common topic of discussion around here). Instead, they will probably be the ones approving the layoffs.

[celia]

OP, Schools are now shutting down for the summer and will open back up come the fall. Those who will be attending private schools in September already know who they are. Did you already apply for your kids and get accepted or are you just now starting to think about changing schools? In public schools, you can pretty much walk in on the day before school starts and get in if there is room, but I've never heard of a private school doing that, unless you just moved there. Even then, you would likely check out the private schools and enrollment calendar when you are house shopping.

This admissions calendar for the private school you are interested shows that you can find out more when school resumes in the fall:
https://www.mcdonogh.org/admissions/important-dates

If interested, I suggest you follow all the dates on their calendar once the 2020-2021 calendar is posted. This will give you 6 months to gather more information so you can make a good decision for next year. And this probably isn't the only private school in your area. Look around.

[Bacchus01]

I think we should clarify a few things which I think are being confounded in this discussion. There are at least four types of schools being discussed here.

1. “Regular” public school, drawing local students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness
2. “Elite” public school, drawing from an affluent local neighborhood, most students from wealthy backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness but skewed toward the high end
3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness
4. “Elite” private school, requires admissions test, financial aid available, most students at the high end of the academic spectrum

From the OP I believe the two types of schools being considered are #1 and #4. In which case I think the decision is clear. #4 will put the kids in the best possible position for elite professional career tracks.

A few more thoughts on culture. At the very top of the professional world, the ranks are full of people who grew up in environments similar to #2 and (even more so) #4, who are now the gatekeepers into that world. Even in “meritocratic” fields like medicine, interviews are an important part of the entry process, where cultural markers can be quickly identified. Whether or not you like “elite” culture, if you want to give your kids the best chance to enter that world, there is no better way to prepare them than to send them to elite school.

Something I have noticed is that Bogleheads contains a disproportionate number of engineers, for whom culture and background may have been less relevant in their success. So I’m sure my comments will draw criticism. What I will suggest in my defense is this: Those students who are being groomed in the Choates and Harvards of the world will probably not be the ones worried about getting laid off from their technical jobs in their 50s (a common topic of discussion around here). Instead, they will probably be the ones approving the layoffs.

This is mostly garbage.

Most of the people I know at the top did not go to elite public or private schools. Most of the people that are Fortune 500 CEOs did not go to elite public or private schools.

[celia]

3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness

I know of no such school like this, in my area, at least. Even if the school isn't "full", the student may not get in if they can't do the work and keep up and if their behavior isn't satisfactory. The schools rarely have special ed, speech therapy classes, or English Leaner classes. Even church-affiliated schools prefer that you participate in the church community that is affiliated with the school. Since it "confuses" the child to participate in religious practices that the parents may not believe in, church schools often "decline" admission to those who have opposing views to the church.

Since I believe that the parents are the primary educators of their children, starting at birth, it is the parents' prerogative to choose the school that they want to help them educate their kids. Or they can even home school them, if they want. (I have several cousins who did this.)

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

I think we should clarify a few things which I think are being confounded in this discussion. There are at least four types of schools being discussed here.

1. “Regular” public school, drawing local students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness
2. “Elite” public school, drawing from an affluent local neighborhood, most students from wealthy backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness but skewed toward the high end
3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness
4. “Elite” private school, requires admissions test, financial aid available, most students at the high end of the academic spectrum

From the OP I believe the two types of schools being considered are #1 and #4. In which case I think the decision is clear. #4 will put the kids in the best possible position for elite professional career tracks.

A few more thoughts on culture. At the very top of the professional world, the ranks are full of people who grew up in environments similar to #2 and (even more so) #4, who are now the gatekeepers into that world. Even in “meritocratic” fields like medicine, interviews are an important part of the entry process, where cultural markers can be quickly identified. Whether or not you like “elite” culture, if you want to give your kids the best chance to enter that world, there is no better way to prepare them than to send them to elite school.

Something I have noticed is that Bogleheads contains a disproportionate number of engineers, for whom culture and background may have been less relevant in their success. So I’m sure my comments will draw criticism. What I will suggest in my defense is this: Those students who are being groomed in the Choates and Harvards of the world will probably not be the ones worried about getting laid off from their technical jobs in their 50s (a common topic of discussion around here). Instead, they will probably be the ones approving the layoffs.

This is mostly garbage.

Most of the people I know at the top did not go to elite public or private schools. Most of the people that are Fortune 500 CEOs did not go to elite public or private schools.

Relative to the size of their student bodies, the elite schools are significantly over-represented in the ranks of Fortune 500 CEOs. Same for private equity, investment banking, MBB consulting, elite law firms, etc.

[Bacchus01]

I think we should clarify a few things which I think are being confounded in this discussion. There are at least four types of schools being discussed here.

1. “Regular” public school, drawing local students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness
2. “Elite” public school, drawing from an affluent local neighborhood, most students from wealthy backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness but skewed toward the high end
3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness
4. “Elite” private school, requires admissions test, financial aid available, most students at the high end of the academic spectrum

From the OP I believe the two types of schools being considered are #1 and #4. In which case I think the decision is clear. #4 will put the kids in the best possible position for elite professional career tracks.

A few more thoughts on culture. At the very top of the professional world, the ranks are full of people who grew up in environments similar to #2 and (even more so) #4, who are now the gatekeepers into that world. Even in “meritocratic” fields like medicine, interviews are an important part of the entry process, where cultural markers can be quickly identified. Whether or not you like “elite” culture, if you want to give your kids the best chance to enter that world, there is no better way to prepare them than to send them to elite school.

Something I have noticed is that Bogleheads contains a disproportionate number of engineers, for whom culture and background may have been less relevant in their success. So I’m sure my comments will draw criticism. What I will suggest in my defense is this: Those students who are being groomed in the Choates and Harvards of the world will probably not be the ones worried about getting laid off from their technical jobs in their 50s (a common topic of discussion around here). Instead, they will probably be the ones approving the layoffs.

This is mostly garbage.

Most of the people I know at the top did not go to elite public or private schools. Most of the people that are Fortune 500 CEOs did not go to elite public or private schools.

Relative to the size of their student bodies, the elite schools are significantly over-represented in the ranks of Fortune 500 CEOs. Same for private equity, investment banking, MBB consulting, elite law firms, etc.

Prove it.

We’re talking HS here. High school.

[celia]

Get the best education that money can buy if you can afford it.
Potentially the highest lifetime returns per dollar spent.

I generally agree with this, but paying $30k per year for 13 years (K-12) seems like a steep cost to recover, if you can get basically the same thing for free (not really free but you are already paying for it.)

That’s $390k. Probably more like $600k by the time they are 18, and $3,000,000 thirty years after that.

With the OP's portfolio, it should easily make more than $30K each year, so the cost is irrelevant.

[Bobby206]

I really want to emphasize that money is no issue so I retitled to VERY HIGH nw and have posted our net worth (~10M). I really appreciate people talking about ways to save money but this post really is about what to do when money is not a factor. Sure you can get tutors, or supplement their education, but they are still spending 8+ hours, 5 days a week, for the next 12 years somewhere.

$10m is "VERY HIGH nw?" Really? We have more than that and would never say we have "very" high. Maybe "high" but depends who I am talking to. To each his/her own I suppose. To me, money is ALWAYS a factor.

Anyway, my kids are in public schools.

[WildBill]

I think we should clarify a few things which I think are being confounded in this discussion. There are at least four types of schools being discussed here.

1. “Regular” public school, drawing local students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness
2. “Elite” public school, drawing from an affluent local neighborhood, most students from wealthy backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness but skewed toward the high end
3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness
4. “Elite” private school, requires admissions test, financial aid available, most students at the high end of the academic spectrum

From the OP I believe the two types of schools being considered are #1 and #4. In which case I think the decision is clear. #4 will put the kids in the best possible position for elite professional career tracks.

A few more thoughts on culture. At the very top of the professional world, the ranks are full of people who grew up in environments similar to #2 and (even more so) #4, who are now the gatekeepers into that world. Even in “meritocratic” fields like medicine, interviews are an important part of the entry process, where cultural markers can be quickly identified. Whether or not you like “elite” culture, if you want to give your kids the best chance to enter that world, there is no better way to prepare them than to send them to elite school.

Something I have noticed is that Bogleheads contains a disproportionate number of engineers, for whom culture and background may have been less relevant in their success. So I’m sure my comments will draw criticism. What I will suggest in my defense is this: Those students who are being groomed in the Choates and Harvards of the world will probably not be the ones worried about getting laid off from their technical jobs in their 50s (a common topic of discussion around here). Instead, they will probably be the ones approving the layoffs.

This is mostly garbage.

Most of the people I know at the top did not go to elite public or private schools. Most of the people that are Fortune 500 CEOs did not go to elite public or private schools.

Relative to the size of their student bodies, the elite schools are significantly over-represented in the ranks of Fortune 500 CEOs. Same for private equity, investment banking, MBB consulting, elite law firms, etc.

Howdy

Some merit to this point, but very broad over generalization. Many of the degrees you are referring to are graduate degrees, often achieved by students from non-elite undergraduate universities.

And what does that have to do with public vs private secondary schools?

I think the decision has to come down to the specific schools OP has to chose from and the fit for each school for his individual kids. Too many variables involved for strangers with limited knowledge to generalize.

Good luck to OP.

W B

[randomguy]

I know the issue you say isnt the money, but it is alwyas the money. It seems the answer you want is private school, but $30K per child per year for what 12 years, is $360K, if you invest that money in the market for them, by the time they are college grads, they prob have $1M each. is the value of private K-12 worth $1M to them? I dont think so.

Haven't you seen the studies were giving your kid money ruins them? Much better to teach them to fish than to give them the fish:) In the end will can go around in circles and you aren't going to get anywhere. People that spend on private school don't want to think they wasted their money. People who sent their kids to public schools don't want to think they didn't do the best they could for their kid.

Sometimes a school is a really good fit (i.e. great music program, your age group track superstar going to a HS with a good track coach, a creative writing program for an author,...) for a given kid but in those cases it tends to be a pretty obvious choice. Expecting to get another 20 points on the SAT is probably delusional:)

[ks289]

- research shows that there is little difference in going public vs private in life salary outcomes (when you control for everything else)

This was one of my big reasons of us doing public. IF private can guarantee better pre college education or better test scores or better college acceptances or better starting earnings or better lifetime earnings I would give them TWICE the money they are asking. What they are asking is GUARANTEED a larger outlay then public (free) with no substance they produce much better returns.

It is interesting folks on this site who are so against active management because there is not guarantee of better returns despite higher costs are so willing to give money to folks who have NOT shown any data they can produce better return.

The funnies thing was hearing my question from the back of EVERY school forum when we were looking as to why I should pick their school and give them money unless they can show me they produce better students. The crickets in the air from them AND the fellow audience members were deafening yet they still have no problem filling their spots.

Now there are plenty of excellent private schools who do produce great results, but then again they are usually very selective so it is still a nature vs. nuture thing.

Good luck.

Your expectation for guaranteed benefits is pretty high don’t you think? Should doctors guarantee a good outcome when we initiate a treatment supported by randomized controlled studies demonstrating a significant benefit? No we should not. And yes we are required to bill for our services knowing we will not be able to heal everyone.

Such guarantees simply don’t exist in life, even if there are randomized studies (which there aren’t for this topic). Yes there are some studies of lottery systems for urban kids to attend private schools out there, but that hardly matches the scenario here (good public vs elite private school). Too much heterogeneity in both public and private schools to really have any kind of meaningful studies to answer these kinds of questions in my opinion.

Plenty of studies demonstrate higher performance in private schools vs public. Clearly the outperformance is largely eliminated when correcting for socioeconomic factors. HOWEVER, the fact that some wealthy parents decide to send their kids to public while others send to private is NOT RANDOM, and probably it is because of their judgement based on individual circumstances (how do the school options compare, what fits my kid better, etc).

If one can afford private school, we should not rely on inflexible rules or crappy data and ignore the circumstances. We should try to use our best judgement like we do with most of our decisions in life. I think most times both options will work out just fine for most kids, but some kids really may benefit from something different from the public school option. A public/private school decision is ultimately not very different from choosing to live in a more expensive or higher tax town with good public schools vs a cheaper town with lousier public schools.

Good luck.

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

Anyone who is not familiar with how elite jobs recruit should read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Pedigree-How-Eli ... 1-fkmrnull

“Cultural fit” is a thing, and it is easier to learn that fit at elite schools (K through graduate degree) than at ordinary schools.

[international001]

Plenty of studies demonstrate higher performance in private schools vs public. Clearly the outperformance is largely eliminated when correcting for socioeconomic factors. HOWEVER, the fact that some wealthy parents decide to send their kids to public while others send to private is NOT RANDOM, and probably it is because of their judgement based on individual circumstances (how do the school options compare, what fits my kid better, etc).

My anecdotal experiences (friends with kinds moving from public to private) is that private schools in the same area are about the same quality, but private schools baby sit you much more. this is consistent with some research suggesting it may help, but only for less motivated kids

[TomatoTomahto]

1. “Regular” public school, drawing local students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness
2. “Elite” public school, drawing from an affluent local neighborhood, most students from wealthy backgrounds, a range of academic preparedness but skewed toward the high end
3. “Regular” private school, no admission standards, students attend if their parents can afford it or they get financial aid, range of academic preparedness
4. “Elite” private school, requires admissions test, financial aid available, most students at the high end of the academic spectrum

My kids started at elite public and moved to elite private. Elite public probably works for 90+% of kids; mine dropped through the cracks and were much better off at the elite private. We would not have moved from elite public to regular private.

OP seems to be making a choice between regular public and elite private. IMO, it’s a no brainer if the money is available.

[Hector]

If money is not an issue and if you think private schools might be better for your kids, just do it. If it is not the case after kids are in private school, you can always move them back to public school. I think it is not healthy not to spend money when you can and regretting later on.

[Bacchus01]

If money is not an issue and if you think private schools might be better for your kids, just do it. If it is not the case after kids are in private school, you can always move them back to public school. I think it is not healthy not to spend money when you can and regretting later on.

Moving back and forth between schools is very hard on kids

[staythecourse]

- research shows that there is little difference in going public vs private in life salary outcomes (when you control for everything else)

This was one of my big reasons of us doing public. IF private can guarantee better pre college education or better test scores or better college acceptances or better starting earnings or better lifetime earnings I would give them TWICE the money they are asking. What they are asking is GUARANTEED a larger outlay then public (free) with no substance they produce much better returns.

It is interesting folks on this site who are so against active management because there is not guarantee of better returns despite higher costs are so willing to give money to folks who have NOT shown any data they can produce better return.

The funnies thing was hearing my question from the back of EVERY school forum when we were looking as to why I should pick their school and give them money unless they can show me they produce better students. The crickets in the air from them AND the fellow audience members were deafening yet they still have no problem filling their spots.

Now there are plenty of excellent private schools who do produce great results, but then again they are usually very selective so it is still a nature vs. nuture thing.

Good luck.

Your expectation for guaranteed benefits is pretty high don’t you think? Should doctors guarantee a good outcome when we initiate a treatment supported by randomized controlled studies demonstrating a significant benefit? No we should not. And yes we are required to bill for our services knowing we will not be able to heal everyone.

Such guarantees simply don’t exist in life, even if there are randomized studies (which there aren’t for this topic). Yes there are some studies of lottery systems for urban kids to attend private schools out there, but that hardly matches the scenario here (good public vs elite private school). Too much heterogeneity in both public and private schools to really have any kind of meaningful studies to answer these kinds of questions in my opinion.

Plenty of studies demonstrate higher performance in private schools vs public. Clearly the outperformance is largely eliminated when correcting for socioeconomic factors. HOWEVER, the fact that some wealthy parents decide to send their kids to public while others send to private is NOT RANDOM, and probably it is because of their judgement based on individual circumstances (how do the school options compare, what fits my kid better, etc).

If one can afford private school, we should not rely on inflexible rules or crappy data and ignore the circumstances. We should try to use our best judgement like we do with most of our decisions in life. I think most times both options will work out just fine for most kids, but some kids really may benefit from something different from the public school option. A public/private school decision is ultimately not very different from choosing to live in a more expensive or higher tax town with good public schools vs a cheaper town with lousier public schools.

Good luck.

I am not saying don't do private. What I am saying is there is not data to support private produces any better returns then public, BUT the difference is you are paying for it. Unless you are VERY wealthy, i.e. 10+ million the money that is spent there and lost to no compounding over decades really cost you 1+ million for a couple of kids. That is a significant opportunity cost unless there is SOME/ ANY data to support private has advantages.

No worries there will be plenty of folks continue to believe private gets you some opportunity advantage and those schools are blessed to have those parents around otherwise the would fold. IN our metro area it is funny how hard they are advertising now since many of the rich send their kids to the high performing public schools in the area.

IN reality private and public (outside of a minority) are a joke on the educational map of develped country considering how much we spend per pupil. We figured that out awhile ago and know it is up to us to advance education of our child and NOT public or private.

Good luck.

[staythecourse]

Your expectation for guaranteed benefits is pretty high don’t you think? Should doctors guarantee a good outcome when we initiate a treatment supported by randomized controlled studies demonstrating a significant benefit? No we should not. And yes we are required to bill for our services knowing we will not be able to heal everyone.

Bad analogy. In your situation you don't have another option then the one available for medical care. In schooling you are CHOOSING and PAYING a premium over the default option KNOWING there is a very high chance of no advantage.

Good luck.

[ks289]

- research shows that there is little difference in going public vs private in life salary outcomes (when you control for everything else)

This was one of my big reasons of us doing public. IF private can guarantee better pre college education or better test scores or better college acceptances or better starting earnings or better lifetime earnings I would give them TWICE the money they are asking. What they are asking is GUARANTEED a larger outlay then public (free) with no substance they produce much better returns.

It is interesting folks on this site who are so against active management because there is not guarantee of better returns despite higher costs are so willing to give money to folks who have NOT shown any data they can produce better return.

The funnies thing was hearing my question from the back of EVERY school forum when we were looking as to why I should pick their school and give them money unless they can show me they produce better students. The crickets in the air from them AND the fellow audience members were deafening yet they still have no problem filling their spots.

Now there are plenty of excellent private schools who do produce great results, but then again they are usually very selective so it is still a nature vs. nuture thing.

Good luck.

Your expectation for guaranteed benefits is pretty high don’t you think? Should doctors guarantee a good outcome when we initiate a treatment supported by randomized controlled studies demonstrating a significant benefit? No we should not. And yes we are required to bill for our services knowing we will not be able to heal everyone.

Such guarantees simply don’t exist in life, even if there are randomized studies (which there aren’t for this topic). Yes there are some studies of lottery systems for urban kids to attend private schools out there, but that hardly matches the scenario here (good public vs elite private school). Too much heterogeneity in both public and private schools to really have any kind of meaningful studies to answer these kinds of questions in my opinion.

Plenty of studies demonstrate higher performance in private schools vs public. Clearly the outperformance is largely eliminated when correcting for socioeconomic factors. HOWEVER, the fact that some wealthy parents decide to send their kids to public while others send to private is NOT RANDOM, and probably it is because of their judgement based on individual circumstances (how do the school options compare, what fits my kid better, etc).

If one can afford private school, we should not rely on inflexible rules or crappy data and ignore the circumstances. We should try to use our best judgement like we do with most of our decisions in life. I think most times both options will work out just fine for most kids, but some kids really may benefit from something different from the public school option. A public/private school decision is ultimately not very different from choosing to live in a more expensive or higher tax town with good public schools vs a cheaper town with lousier public schools.

Good luck.

As usual a lot of talk and no substance. Where in your response do you mention that private gets better returns of ANY type? You don't so you agree that you are paying money for no obvious financial/ educational advantage.

I am not saying don't do private. What I am saying is there is not data to support private produces any better returns then public, BUT the difference is you are paying for it. Unless you are VERY wealthy, i.e. 10+ million the money that is spent there and lost to no compounding over decades really cost you 1+ million for a couple of kids. That is a significant opportunity cost unless there is SOME/ ANY data to support private has advantages.

No worries there will be plenty of folks continue to believe private gets you some opportunity advantage and those schools are blessed to have those parents around otherwise the would fold. IN our metro area it is funny how hard they are advertising now since many of the rich send their kids to the high performing public schools in the area.

IN reality private and public (outside of a minority) are a joke on the educational map of develped country considering how much we spend per pupil. We figured that out awhile ago and know it is up to us to advance education of our child and NOT public or private.

Good luck.

I think you are missing my point and sound extremely confident about your knowledge and decision making prowess. Show me the data for 99+% of the decisions you make in your life! Even medical decisions--there are huge black holes in the data to guide decisions we make every day. There's plenty of opinion of course -which actually has some merit when well supported.

I think you know by now that I link studies frequently in my posts to support certain factual points, but I also point out the limitations in attempting to generalize non randomized/prospective studies that are frequently cited here on both sides.

"Overall, there were many similarities in the results for the two grades. In both reading and mathematics, analyses employing unadjusted NAEP scores indicated that the average private school mean score was higher than the average public school mean score, and the difference was statistically significant."
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/p ... 006461.pdf

However, this is not particularly helpful data because it is not adjusted for student characteristics, but there's plenty of data like this out there on both sides--that's my point about trying to use data to guide this. We actually agree here! What's different is that you assume then there is no difference, while I am not that sure because high quality data doesn't exist (and most likely never will). This includes the college decision.

"The reasons for the disparity are easy to track, said Christopher Avery, a professor of public policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government who has written extensively on college as an agent of social mobility. Students who earn a degree from an elite college, even those with unimpressive grades and test scores, are simply too far ahead of those who don’t, he said."

“What’s disturbing about this research is that it shows that even if you distinguish yourself as a great student at a Tier 4 school, and by some miracle you get into a good grad program, you aren’t likely to wind up with the tools you need to ever catch up to those people who went to a more selective four-year college,” Dr. Avery said. “You want to think that at some point the playing field is level, but the truth is increasingly clear that the answer is it probably never is. By high school, it’s pretty much over.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/educ ... ch-up.html

The obvious point is that if you have ten million dollars like the OP and there is a clear disparity between the public/private choices, then you CAN afford to spend money on education and you MIGHT be helping your kids (or not). If you don't have that kind of money or the choices are comparable, then probably you should save it for something else.

We are able to fund an early retirement, fund college expenses, and pay for private elementary/middle school tuition for our kids because we decided it suited them better. Our tradeoff is not having nice cars, a boat, a vacation home, or $5000 watches---these things are not that important to us.

[zeal]

I went to a B+ rated, "poorer" (>50% free/discounted lunch) public school than the one in your links. I was always at or near the top of my class in academics, athletics, and extracurricular activities from elementary through college. Sounds like your kids will probably be in the same boat I was. So many awards... honor roll, dean's list, president's list, achievement-based scholarships, state championships in individual sports, team sports, and academic clubs. Still very proud of those accomplishments, always enjoyed school/sports/clubs, and very happy with where I am today. Most of the students I graduated high school with went to college or trade school and a lot of them run their own businesses at various rates of success. There are a very small few who didn't make it through high school and/or have been in and out of jail/prison since.

Of the ~15 people I've known who went to private school (met most of them when I was in college, some via sports/clubs/gov school while in high school), all but two of them have made some seriously terrible life choices with drugs and alcohol, gambling, debt, illegal street racing, and various other law-breaking activities. Of the two who somehow avoided all that, one has been incredibly successful in the music industry and the other has been working at a hardware store and has been working his way up to a recent promotion to manager. Both are exceptional people.

On the outside it seems overwhelmingly that the people from private schools have trouble relating with others and make some very poor/risky decisions, so my opinion would be to stick with the "good enough" public schools. However... I've never been to a private school, so I have no idea how large my sample size here is--obviously it could be skewed. Also it's not just their peers you have to consider, but your peers too--the parents of those kids.

If you have good kids, I would guess they'll succeed wherever you send them. Please let us know what you decide and why--I'm curious!

[softwaregeek]

My oldest goes to an "Elite" public elementary. (Average house price >$2 million, zero students free and reduced price lunch, parents primarily in "elite" jobs in Silicon Valley).

She is a prodigy; she recently scored top 1% in a nationwide math competition (measured against other kids who do elementary school math competitions - not the average kid) and performs academically much, much higher than her age.

Public school has nothing to teach her; she is bored out of her skull and I'm seriously considering yanking her out and paying for private.

We do pay for additional enrichment - about four hours a week of high quality math instruction, two hours a week of Mandarin language training, plus some non-academic stuff such as gymnastics and martial arts. I also personally tutor her in random programming languages on occasion and in Chess.

My youngest is still in Preschool. We think he would crash and burn in public school; he has behavioural issues and he would likely either fall through the cracks or academically fail, or both. We're holding him back a year but we don't think public school is right for him. We're thinking maybe send him to kinder at 6 at the local religious school, where student-teacher ratio is lower and he can get more attention.

If your student is in the middle 80%, public school is probably fine. But in my case, with a star student and a problem kid, private is the way to go.

[staythecourse]

If your student is in the middle 80%, public school is probably fine. But in my case, with a star student and a problem kid, private is the way to go.

Not true and like anything else anecdotal. No shade on your kid, but my cousin was doing calculus in THIRD grade. I am not kidding. She got one question wrong on her SAT. Went to IVY then Stanford MBA. Guess where she accomplished that success? Public. For every one story this way there is another that goes the other way.

Good luck.

[outwash]

Keep in mind that 50% free and reduced is not unusually poor in today's world. My kids attended elementary and middle schools in a slightly poor section of a realatively wealthy college town and had over 70%.

Also by late elementary or middle school your kids may be in advanced/honors/gifted classes that has it's own dynamic as some of mine were. Also if you have a student with certain issues (say autism, mental health, etc.) a public school may have more options for assistance.

And they may enjoy being a leader in an diverse environment, versus one of many from similar environments in private.

Having said that, I know most in your situation will pick private schools.

[GCD]

If your student is in the middle 80%, public school is probably fine. But in my case, with a star student and a problem kid, private is the way to go.

Also if you have a student with certain issues (say autism, mental health, etc.) a public school may have more options for assistance.

Yet another anecdote...

A friend of mine has a kid with a couple of soft mental health issues/learning disabilities. They had him in a private school that seemed put out to have to deal with him. Made the parents pay extra for tutoring, etc. The private school dragged their feet on everything. Once the kid went to a public school it was completely different. Once he had an IEP all sorts of accommodations got thrown at him for free and the school was very responsive.

I imagine it will be pretty different for every kid and every school district. But I repeat dozens of posters above me.

[GlacierRunner]

Has this been suggested?
Public for Elementary
Homeschool for Middle
Private school for High School

I heard once that the greatest predictor of academic success is parental involvement and I believe it.

[HomerJ]

Send one to private, one to public. Split the third after elementary. Let us know who is more successful in 30 years. Then you'll know which decision was right.
-
-
-
You're right. There is no way to predict it. Nor any way to look back in 30 years, and say it made a difference. Chill out. Encourage your children in what THEY are really interested in learning about. They'll thank you for that..... Even if they take the really expensive education for granted.
Congrats on the net worth.
Regards, Greg in West Mitten

Great post

[staythecourse]

We do pay for additional enrichment - about four hours a week of high quality math instruction, two hours a week of Mandarin language training, plus some non-academic stuff such as gymnastics and martial arts. I also personally tutor her in random programming languages on occasion and in Chess.

Public or private is a decision all parents need to make is best for their kid, but in either choice the quoted above is how a kid becomes successful. No school in the U.S.(except few) will do all the teaching the kids need to fulfill the potential. Challenging the child beyond what is expected at their level is how they become advanced in anything. Only makes sense (at least for me).

I don't know ANYBODY who is successful who did not do MORE then what is expected at any level of age. Those that challenged themselves tended to be more successful no matter public or private.

Good luck.

[GCD]

I don't know ANYBODY who is successful who did not do MORE then what is expected at any level of age.

That's a bit bold. No need to write off the late bloomers. Not only my own experience, but many others I have seen.

[staythecourse]

“What’s disturbing about this research is that it shows that even if you distinguish yourself as a great student at a Tier 4 school, and by some miracle you get into a good grad program, you aren’t likely to wind up with the tools you need to ever catch up to those people who went to a more selective four-year college,” Dr. Avery said. “You want to think that at some point the playing field is level, but the truth is increasingly clear that the answer is it probably never is. By high school, it’s pretty much over.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/educ ... ch-up.html

I would love to read the article if you have suggestions on how to get through the paywall? It seems to be in conflict of some of data linked on here on past threads which I think was from ?payscale. I'm from IL and clearly remember that UofI (state school) grads have higher starting and mid career salaries then those who grad. from Northwestern and UofC. I remember there wasn't a great correlation of the "name" of the school and future salaries OUTSIDE of those of HYPS+ MIT and a few others.

Good luck.

[staythecourse]

I don't know ANYBODY who is successful who did not do MORE then what is expected at any level of age.

That's a bit bold. No need to write off the late bloomers. Not only my own experience, but many others I have seen.

Apologize I misrepresented what I meant. I meant "I don't know ANYBODY who is successful who did not do MORE then what is expected". Not that you had to be a superstar from early and all the way through, but eventually figured it out and then started to work hard. My focus was on the person working hard more then what is required and NOT that it had to be from a young age.

BTW, I'm in your category. I was a complete goofball until college. That is why I KNOW you can be successful without spending money on a high level private education or IVY education. I had neither and trained and Harvard for residency and fellowship.

Good luck.

[Bacchus01]

We do pay for additional enrichment - about four hours a week of high quality math instruction, two hours a week of Mandarin language training, plus some non-academic stuff such as gymnastics and martial arts. I also personally tutor her in random programming languages on occasion and in Chess.

Public or private is a decision all parents need to make is best for their kid, but in either choice the quoted above is how a kid becomes successful. No school in the U.S.(except few) will do all the teaching the kids need to fulfill the potential. Challenging the child beyond what is expected at their level is how they become advanced in anything. Only makes sense (at least for me).

I don't know ANYBODY who is successful who did not do MORE then what is expected at any level of age. Those that challenged themselves tended to be more successful no matter public or private.

Good luck.

You think every kid, to be successful, needs to do aix hours a week of extra academics outside of school as a GRADE SCHOOLER?

No. Just no.

[GCD]

“What’s disturbing about this research is that it shows that even if you distinguish yourself as a great student at a Tier 4 school, and by some miracle you get into a good grad program, you aren’t likely to wind up with the tools you need to ever catch up to those people who went to a more selective four-year college,” Dr. Avery said. “You want to think that at some point the playing field is level, but the truth is increasingly clear that the answer is it probably never is. By high school, it’s pretty much over.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/educ ... ch-up.html

I would love to read the article if you have suggestions on how to get through the paywall? It seems to be in conflict of some of data linked on here on past threads which I think was from ?payscale. I'm from IL and clearly remember that UofI (state school) grads have higher starting and mid career salaries then those who grad. from Northwestern and UofC. I remember there wasn't a great correlation of the "name" of the school and future salaries OUTSIDE of those of HYPS+ MIT and a few others.

Good luck.

We are off to college comparisons, not K-12, so I won't go into great detail, but my rudimentary analysis of USNWR reporting of starting salaries by major at various colleges showed a greater correlation between starting salary and major than starting salary and school. In fact, some really bad schools beat Harvard depending on major.

[staythecourse]

“What’s disturbing about this research is that it shows that even if you distinguish yourself as a great student at a Tier 4 school, and by some miracle you get into a good grad program, you aren’t likely to wind up with the tools you need to ever catch up to those people who went to a more selective four-year college,” Dr. Avery said. “You want to think that at some point the playing field is level, but the truth is increasingly clear that the answer is it probably never is. By high school, it’s pretty much over.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/educ ... ch-up.html

I would love to read the article if you have suggestions on how to get through the paywall? It seems to be in conflict of some of data linked on here on past threads which I think was from ?payscale. I'm from IL and clearly remember that UofI (state school) grads have higher starting and mid career salaries then those who grad. from Northwestern and UofC. I remember there wasn't a great correlation of the "name" of the school and future salaries OUTSIDE of those of HYPS+ MIT and a few others.

Good luck.

We are off to college comparisons, not K-12, so I won't go into great detail, but my rudimentary analysis of USNWR reporting of starting salaries by major at various colleges showed a greater correlation between starting salary and major than starting salary and school. In fact, some really bad schools beat Harvard depending on major.

This is what I remember as well. I think I mentioned the same thing earlier in this thread or a different one just recently. They key to financial success is that one will get paid within a range of their occupation/ profession. No surprise UofI (my example above) has high salaries as they have great engineering, accounting, and pharmacy schools (of the top of my head).

Good luck.

[staythecourse]

We do pay for additional enrichment - about four hours a week of high quality math instruction, two hours a week of Mandarin language training, plus some non-academic stuff such as gymnastics and martial arts. I also personally tutor her in random programming languages on occasion and in Chess.

Public or private is a decision all parents need to make is best for their kid, but in either choice the quoted above is how a kid becomes successful. No school in the U.S.(except few) will do all the teaching the kids need to fulfill the potential. Challenging the child beyond what is expected at their level is how they become advanced in anything. Only makes sense (at least for me).

I don't know ANYBODY who is successful who did not do MORE then what is expected at any level of age. Those that challenged themselves tended to be more successful no matter public or private.

Good luck.

You think every kid, to be successful, needs to do aix hours a week of extra academics outside of school as a GRADE SCHOOLER?

No. Just no.

Not saying they have to, but if they want a high chance of being successful in x it is only obvious (maybe not that obvious I guess) that the more of x you do then your cohort the better chance you will be more successful at x then they will be. In the example I quoted from the other poster or my cousin I mentioned it isn't like they really are prodigies. The have a high aptitude and are stimulated doing x over and over again until they become proficient at it. The ability and stimulating that ability is how you become successful. Would the Polgar sisters in Chess or Tiger Wood in golf be at their level if they just did the same amount of work as everybody else?

Again this is my opinion only and am by far no expert, but just seems obvious if you want to be successful at something you have to put extra time into being good at it. In relation to this thread I was trying to make the point THAT is more important then if you go public or private.

Good luck.

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

“What’s disturbing about this research is that it shows that even if you distinguish yourself as a great student at a Tier 4 school, and by some miracle you get into a good grad program, you aren’t likely to wind up with the tools you need to ever catch up to those people who went to a more selective four-year college,” Dr. Avery said. “You want to think that at some point the playing field is level, but the truth is increasingly clear that the answer is it probably never is. By high school, it’s pretty much over.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/educ ... ch-up.html

I would love to read the article if you have suggestions on how to get through the paywall? It seems to be in conflict of some of data linked on here on past threads which I think was from ?payscale. I'm from IL and clearly remember that UofI (state school) grads have higher starting and mid career salaries then those who grad. from Northwestern and UofC. I remember there wasn't a great correlation of the "name" of the school and future salaries OUTSIDE of those of HYPS+ MIT and a few others.

Good luck.

We are off to college comparisons, not K-12, so I won't go into great detail, but my rudimentary analysis of USNWR reporting of starting salaries by major at various colleges showed a greater correlation between starting salary and major than starting salary and school. In fact, some really bad schools beat Harvard depending on major.

This is what I remember as well. I think I mentioned the same thing earlier in this thread or a different one just recently. They key to financial success is that one will get paid within a range of their occupation/ profession. No surprise UofI (my example above) has high salaries as they have great engineering, accounting, and pharmacy schools (of the top of my head).

Good luck.

Engineering, accounting, pharmacy, these are all fields that have caps on salary growth, are being commoditized, and/or are at risk of offshoring & ageism. It’s true that their starting salaries out of college are high, but look long term and you will find they quickly lag behind the elite professional jobs in total return.

Of course, grad school is the common retort. But then elite cultural fit comes into play, as the book I recommended above clearly demonstrates.