I fail to understand. I can see obligations and illusory attachments of yourself towards prestige that might trick yourself into "imprisonment" and, therefore, less freedom but is it more freedom to be able to afford something of higher quality than average?
We are following the subjective desire of freedom by the way. And from what I can see using that standard is that an "awesome job" is not more awesome than a more "awesome job". (which is, as defined for now, determined by power)
Perhaps not a necessity but instead what could be a better option. Though there are many other factors that should be involved in this "better option", I see "prestigious jobs" generally catering more than their less than prestigious counterparts.
I just realized how materialistic I sound. Still...
No. Freedom doesn't really have anything to do with what you can buy and what you cannot buy (in terms of quality). Surely, if your extremely poor you're going to feel like you don't have freedom or control over your life, because you can't buy a damn thing when you're poor. Hence, if you have an autonomous nature, you might feel trapped. Although, if you're somewhere in the middle class section of society, you'll be able to accumulate enough money without busting your balls to get into a prestigious college, or to impress enough people with your massive amount of degrees in order to get a great job. With this moderate amount of income, you can basically do a large portion of the things you want.
Thus, my first set of points are basically this: only if you're an extremely poor, third-class citizen should you be worrying about your economic, or socioeconomic, sense of freedom, because the working class hasn't the money to do a damn thing, generally. They just work, pay bills, and work. The second class, however, can live a moderately enjoyable life without the ample affluence which allows some people to own five mansions and ten cars. In other words, you don't need five yachts and a Hummer for every one of your kids to be happy.
Thus:
1. Third-class = socioeconomically imprisoned
2. Second class = socioeconomically satisfied
3. First class = socioeconomically spoiled
Another point is that INTPs probably don't generally value excess and unnecessary commodities. We are simple people who are happy so long as we can work on a theory or discuss something with intelligent people every other day for a living. We're also usually philosophical, which would allow us to realize that—ultimately—social prestige and redundant amounts of wealth aren't really the entire point of life. For some, it may be; but just being relatively free (socioeconomically) and allowed to work in some kind of academic setting or artistic setting is usually enough for many INTPs to be happy.
Thus, I don't really see how prestigious colleges are necessary. Surely, if you can get in, go for it (not because you'll be fucked if you don't, but because you'll generally get a better education and then a more esteemed job which will allow you to deal with matters in a much more sophisticated and professional manner (as the higher your degree, the larger the work you can actually deal with). And this brings me to my last point: INTPs generally value learning for either the fun of it (learning just to learn out of the insatiable need to acquire knowledge, as most NT rationals) or because we want enough knowledge in a particular area to satisfy our crave of theory and system-building and various kinds of design. Thus, an INTP will usually acquire degrees NOT to impress a bunch of potential employers but to actually learn material which they honestly value from a personal perspective.
Thus, if INTPs generally place more emphasis on learning than the symbolic value of their degrees, they really would be satisfied with a decent state college which would allow them to become something relative in their community which then would allow them to live happily on a modest income which would lead to a modest socioeconomic condition sufficient for happy living and enough personal freedom. Also, if you're good enough at something, going to a prestigious college and amassing many degrees won't necessarily matter; if you're good enough at something, you'll be recognized eventually and opportunities will arise on their own.
Thus, I think it's a pit to fall into the entire idea that you should only really get a job for the amount of money it pays and earn degrees so you can get a job that pays a lot of money. Focusing on what you're LEARNING and how that learning will lead you into a job right for your personality type is really all that matters. Do you enjoy the material you're learning? Are you going to enjoy the career area you've chosen? Will enjoy your job? This is all that really matters and going to a prestigious college doesn't really address either of these. Hence, I think it's unnecessary but a great thing if you can get into one. Thus, there's no "I GOTTA GO TO PRINCETON OR I'M A FAILURE." That sort of thinking is ridiculous. There's no need to go to these colleges in order to be happy. Simple as that.
Although, some people do value more than learning and a decent job and for those people, going to a prestigious college might be necessary from a personal, subjective perspective. And to them I say "go for it." But just because some people think attending prestigious colleges is necessary doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it as some kind of fact. It's not necessary, necessarily. Some of us will be happy with a modest life; some of us won't. Simple as that, too.
)? Of course this won't always be true, but I think it does hold for most cases.
