It does matter where you go in a lot of cases-- not so much for the name recognition, but for the actual education you receive. I actually left California because the state schools there are an absolute mess, and from all reports I wouldn't receive much education there, but just a degree. And I was shit on by quite a few people who told me it wouldn't matter because at least if I went to Berkeley, I'd carry the Berkeley name. It doesn't feel right to me that if I'm going to spend tons of money and close to a decade of my life learning what I'm going to do for the rest of my life that I wouldn't be properly educated in my field. I want to do well and exceed, not merely have a school's name and pass by on that.

You're right in that it's not outlined that schools should support me, they absolutely aren't obligated, but it certainly looks bad on a university that specifically caters only to those who can afford to go to them. It also implies a growing plutocracy in higher institutions, but regardless, it still isn't required. The issue arises for me when these schools make strong arguments that they are there specifically to help poor students get an education, where they seem to make it a major goal, and when it gets down to it, don't give estimates for what they'll give the student until too late and they're already in the school, or they give significantly less funding after the student has been attending for a year, or suddenly refuse to give funding at all after three years and require them to fund their final year entirely. That looks dreadful. That looks like intentional misleading to bring money in as opposed to educating student.

Are you implying that while able to gain admittance to these institutions, you have been unable to obtain academic or needs based scholarships to attend?

I am able to gain admittance to any institution due to my high marks and writing abilities, but the financial aid that comes through the school, federal government, or scholarships does not necessarily come to me. Federal aid and school aid are actually linked more than they should be, so where the government may say my aid can be much, much higher, the schools can dictate how much of that federal aid to give to me (e.g. if cleared for federal aid at 20,000 a year, the school may choose to only grant 6,000 of it and 1,000 in institutional aid.) My scholarships are tough because most are based around high school seniors and not transfer students; and more, while my university marks I carry (the only thing I use) are flawless, my high school grades are not, so it makes scholarships more difficult.

I guess I'll say this. If a student is talented and dedicated, he or she will get a degree.

Note that this isn't directed as an attack at you, but at this concept, because it's seriously flawed. This includes a ton of assumptions. Say everything else fails. Scholarships don't provide enough, the school doesn't, the government doesn't, and whatever my family makes isn't enough to cover my costs. The general thought process is to 'bite the bullet and take a student loan', which we all know are a dreadful mess and run incredibly immorally, but it also rests on the assumption the family in question can receive a loan. Loans are granted on the parents credit, their amount they bring in, and what the student currently brings in. My family doesn't have high enough credentials for any of it.

The system is built to help the rich and mid- to upper- middle class, not the lower-middle class or the poor. The reason it seems that they can make it 'through trials and determination' is because they have access to services that can help them. The poor don't have that. The poor stay poor.

Incidentally (and on a more positive note), I may have found an institution that will support me at the university level. I'll find out in a few months, but if things really don't work out, this is basically my last chance.