Nate Silver: "Go to a state school"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.natesilver.net/p/go-to-a-state-school

I don't always agree with Nate Silver but I think he is spot on. I have interviewed several Ivy League grads that came across as entitled and coddled. I have to wonder if other hiring managers are seeing a similar trend.

Agree 100%.

+2
And the entire country is getting a taste of just how entitled and coddled these morons are.

Okay, the morons in our society are the people with Ivy League degrees. Sounds like you nor your kids have one. More likely that you are the moron.

Bravo on completely missing the point.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.natesilver.net/p/go-to-a-state-school

I don't always agree with Nate Silver but I think he is spot on. I have interviewed several Ivy League grads that came across as entitled and coddled. I have to wonder if other hiring managers are seeing a similar trend.

Agree 100%.

+2
And the entire country is getting a taste of just how entitled and coddled these morons are.

And, unfortunately, we are getting a taste of what a major hater you are.

Get some help.

How ironic. The haters are the aholes calling the police and Jewish people “pigs,” among other vile names. Pathetic that this even has to be explained to you.
DP

[Anonymous]

I attended Stanford for undergrad, and then a flagship state school ranked around #100 for a fully-funded master's degree. I was a TA for undergraduate courses at the state school. Huge difference. A few things stand out to me:

*The amount of work expected of undergraduates at Stanford was significantly more than the state school. I was used to reading at least half a book a week per class at Stanford (and typically an entire book). At the state school the typical reading load was 20-30 pages out of a textbook, and not a real scholarly book. The writing requirements were similarly low. Two 3-page papers, a midterm, and a final at the state school for an intro class. An intro course at Stanford was a 5-page paper, a 10-page paper, a midterm, and a final. I was used to writing papers in the 15-30 page range, which is more typical of graduate requirements at the state school.

*Stanford encouraged "big" thinking--engaging with big ideas, taking risks. I felt like the state school had me in the weeds, writing about obscure things instead of working at a higher level. Part of that may be undergraduate vs. graduate study, but when I returned to the top-5 for law school, I found myself once again in the "big thinking" world.

None of this is to say that you can't find state schools with rigorous requirements, but I think you really have to move up a lot in the rankings if that's what you're looking for. And this isn't a product of the caliber of the professors--most of the state school professors went to places like Stanford. It was the other students--a professor told me he used to assign more work, but the students just wouldn't do it and eventually he gave in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended Stanford for undergrad, and then a flagship state school ranked around #100 for a fully-funded master's degree. I was a TA for undergraduate courses at the state school. Huge difference. A few things stand out to me:

*The amount of work expected of undergraduates at Stanford was significantly more than the state school. I was used to reading at least half a book a week per class at Stanford (and typically an entire book). At the state school the typical reading load was 20-30 pages out of a textbook, and not a real scholarly book. The writing requirements were similarly low. Two 3-page papers, a midterm, and a final at the state school for an intro class. An intro course at Stanford was a 5-page paper, a 10-page paper, a midterm, and a final. I was used to writing papers in the 15-30 page range, which is more typical of graduate requirements at the state school.

*Stanford encouraged "big" thinking--engaging with big ideas, taking risks. I felt like the state school had me in the weeds, writing about obscure things instead of working at a higher level. Part of that may be undergraduate vs. graduate study, but when I returned to the top-5 for law school, I found myself once again in the "big thinking" world.

None of this is to say that you can't find state schools with rigorous requirements, but I think you really have to move up a lot in the rankings if that's what you're looking for. And this isn't a product of the caliber of the professors--most of the state school professors went to places like Stanford. It was the other students--a professor told me he used to assign more work, but the students just wouldn't do it and eventually he gave in.

I attended a top 30 private and it was how you describe Stanford in terms of rigor and workload. My brother attended a top 50 state flagship, and while I can't speak to his academic experience since I wasn't there, he went on to get a doctoral degree at an Ivy and have a very successful career. I am happy with my career, but my brother is objectively more successful than I am. Guess whose undergrad education cost a lot less?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by folks calling some Ivy League grads as coddled? Coddled by whom?

by the school. Some elite schools treat their kids as "too big to fail", and don't want to impact their student body average GPA, so they let them withdraw up to the lat week before finals, whereas in big state schools, you can't withdraw that close to finals, and you just take the F or D or whatever, and make it up in the summer. And big state schools don't hold your hand and treat you like you're "special".

+1 OP here. The Ivy grads we have interviewed definitely came across like they had been told they were god's gift to the world. Yet they are applying for jobs with a steep learning curve. Nobody wants to hire someone that doesn't think they have anything to learn, or who will assume they are smarter than anyone who went to a state school.

A students hire A+ students. B students hire C students.

Lol a person who thinks they have nothing to learn is not an A+ student. They are a nightmare. I will happily hire someone smarter than me. But the people who think they are smarter than me usually aren't. Not even close.

You do realize this is a delusion that nearly every reasonably bright person holds. Also, I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded.

I have worked with many people who are smarter/more capable than me, including interns. They may know it, but they don't act superior or disrespectful. The people who think they are smarter than me, and show it, are usually not very smart, or at least not capable of performing well in what my office does. I have absolutely seen a pattern among Ivy grads. It may be because where I work is a place many Ivy grads see as being below them, despite it being interesting work with decent pay. It's not something I am "projecting" - it's something that for example, every single person on an interview panel noticed about a particular candidate. It's people in high level leadership positions that are universally disliked because of how they treat the people they are supposed to be leading. Maybe they would be better leaders if they worked somewhere with more people they considered to be their equals. But since they don't, they do terribly.

So how many examples are you making this more generalized reasoning from??? There's going to be arrogant folks from all sorts of life. No need to link it to notions about "elite schools."

You really don't see how arrogance might be something that occurs at a higher rate among people who went to "elite schools"? Lol

I'm basing it on my direct experience: I have worked with hundreds of interns/grads and don't recognize the trends others are talking about--and my colleagues don't either. We give evaluations to all these people that include things like collaboration skills, learning from feedback, contribution to the team (rated by other team members) etc. and there aren't number trends that align with that bias either.

Okay? You don't see the trends, other people do. Nobody has done a real study on this so we'll never know.

But not only do I not see the trends, I don't trust that other people can do in an unbiased way based on more than their preconceived notions and a couple of experiences that they also see through their particular filter. Not to mention whether explicit agendas fit into the mix for some folks as some of the posts seem to suggest.

In other words you believe you know the truth and people who see things differently are wrong. Maybe you just don't mind arrogance because you are pretty arrogant yourself. And maybe that works in your field. It does not come across well in mine.

No, I believe that I cannot see the trends--I claim there is no discernible relationship between individual's willingness to learn/take feedback and school trends--and I don't trust that others can either. Because it's something that is very hard to see as an individual. I think of that as an appropriately humble stance.

In other words, you have an opinion on this (that there is no trend), you think people who think there is a trend are wrong, yet you think you are being "appropriately humble"? I think I can see where the disconnect is between you and me.

I just doubt that reflecting on the few people you encounter represents a trend no matter what--and I think that's a more humble position--recognizing the limits of what any person can know based on their limited experience and their biased brain. The null hypothesis so to speak would be that there is no difference between people no matter what school they go to--that people are people and they vary in arrogance based on a wide range of factors. You're the one asserting a hypothesis that the type of school you go to makes a difference and you haven't provided much evidence to support that.

Wow. You sound just like the Harvard intern I supervised. He tried to make arguments using what he learned in his HKS stats class, but couldn't see the forest through the trees. Where I work this type of BS won't get you far, but I get that in some places sounding smart, even if it makes no sense, is a valuable skill.

We each have different hypotheses based on our experiences. You are arguing that your experience is valid, and mine is not. That's not what humility is - I'm not sure if you actually don't know that, or that's what you've been taught to say to win an argument. But damn. Sounds like the Ivy grads I met and disliked would fit right in with you.

And you sound like you're missing the point. What you seem willing to argue is that your individual experience with a few Ivy interns gives you insight into an important trend. I'm not arguing a thing about my experience I'm just saying what you have described doesn't sound like a rational basis for claiming a trend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by folks calling some Ivy League grads as coddled? Coddled by whom?

by the school. Some elite schools treat their kids as "too big to fail", and don't want to impact their student body average GPA, so they let them withdraw up to the lat week before finals, whereas in big state schools, you can't withdraw that close to finals, and you just take the F or D or whatever, and make it up in the summer. And big state schools don't hold your hand and treat you like you're "special".

+1 OP here. The Ivy grads we have interviewed definitely came across like they had been told they were god's gift to the world. Yet they are applying for jobs with a steep learning curve. Nobody wants to hire someone that doesn't think they have anything to learn, or who will assume they are smarter than anyone who went to a state school.

A students hire A+ students. B students hire C students.

Lol a person who thinks they have nothing to learn is not an A+ student. They are a nightmare. I will happily hire someone smarter than me. But the people who think they are smarter than me usually aren't. Not even close.

You do realize this is a delusion that nearly every reasonably bright person holds. Also, I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded.

I have worked with many people who are smarter/more capable than me, including interns. They may know it, but they don't act superior or disrespectful. The people who think they are smarter than me, and show it, are usually not very smart, or at least not capable of performing well in what my office does. I have absolutely seen a pattern among Ivy grads. It may be because where I work is a place many Ivy grads see as being below them, despite it being interesting work with decent pay. It's not something I am "projecting" - it's something that for example, every single person on an interview panel noticed about a particular candidate. It's people in high level leadership positions that are universally disliked because of how they treat the people they are supposed to be leading. Maybe they would be better leaders if they worked somewhere with more people they considered to be their equals. But since they don't, they do terribly.

So how many examples are you making this more generalized reasoning from??? There's going to be arrogant folks from all sorts of life. No need to link it to notions about "elite schools."

You really don't see how arrogance might be something that occurs at a higher rate among people who went to "elite schools"? Lol

I'm basing it on my direct experience: I have worked with hundreds of interns/grads and don't recognize the trends others are talking about--and my colleagues don't either. We give evaluations to all these people that include things like collaboration skills, learning from feedback, contribution to the team (rated by other team members) etc. and there aren't number trends that align with that bias either.

Okay? You don't see the trends, other people do. Nobody has done a real study on this so we'll never know.

But not only do I not see the trends, I don't trust that other people can do in an unbiased way based on more than their preconceived notions and a couple of experiences that they also see through their particular filter. Not to mention whether explicit agendas fit into the mix for some folks as some of the posts seem to suggest.

In other words you believe you know the truth and people who see things differently are wrong. Maybe you just don't mind arrogance because you are pretty arrogant yourself. And maybe that works in your field. It does not come across well in mine.

No, I believe that I cannot see the trends--I claim there is no discernible relationship between individual's willingness to learn/take feedback and school trends--and I don't trust that others can either. Because it's something that is very hard to see as an individual. I think of that as an appropriately humble stance.

In other words, you have an opinion on this (that there is no trend), you think people who think there is a trend are wrong, yet you think you are being "appropriately humble"? I think I can see where the disconnect is between you and me.

I just doubt that reflecting on the few people you encounter represents a trend no matter what--and I think that's a more humble position--recognizing the limits of what any person can know based on their limited experience and their biased brain. The null hypothesis so to speak would be that there is no difference between people no matter what school they go to--that people are people and they vary in arrogance based on a wide range of factors. You're the one asserting a hypothesis that the type of school you go to makes a difference and you haven't provided much evidence to support that.

Wow. You sound just like the Harvard intern I supervised. He tried to make arguments using what he learned in his HKS stats class, but couldn't see the forest through the trees. Where I work this type of BS won't get you far, but I get that in some places sounding smart, even if it makes no sense, is a valuable skill.

We each have different hypotheses based on our experiences. You are arguing that your experience is valid, and mine is not. That's not what humility is - I'm not sure if you actually don't know that, or that's what you've been taught to say to win an argument. But damn. Sounds like the Ivy grads I met and disliked would fit right in with you.

And you sound like you're missing the point. What you seem willing to argue is that your individual experience with a few Ivy interns gives you insight into an important trend. I'm not arguing a thing about my experience I'm just saying what you have described doesn't sound like a rational basis for claiming a trend.

Oh my goodness, yes you are. You wrote:

"I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded."

What I am saying is NEITHER one of us has proof either way that Ivy League grads are or aren't arrogant jerks. I am not claiming to have proof. I HAVE seen it several times, among several different people that I have interviewed or worked with closely and/or for long periods of time. Also classmates in a non-Ivy grad program that themselves graduated from Ivy league schools - they were truly insufferable because they very clearly and loudly felt they were too smart to be there. Does it happen with absolutely every Ivy grad? No - I have two very close colleagues that I've worked with for over a decade that attended Ivies back in the day and both are very smart (yes, smarter than me) and only one of them is arrogant. She is by far the most arrogant person in our workplace, which does not tend to attract arrogant people. I tend to see it the most obviously in recent grads. Are there incompetent people that aren't Ivy grads? Of course! But IME, which is obviously different from your experience, there is a certain brand of arrogance that can come with Ivy grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YOUR kids should go to community college then state school or better yet trade school…

My kids? Oh, they are at elite SLACs, Ivies, Georgetown, or UVA at worst.

I deeply pity your kids.

I think OP was being sarcastic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by folks calling some Ivy League grads as coddled? Coddled by whom?

by the school. Some elite schools treat their kids as "too big to fail", and don't want to impact their student body average GPA, so they let them withdraw up to the lat week before finals, whereas in big state schools, you can't withdraw that close to finals, and you just take the F or D or whatever, and make it up in the summer. And big state schools don't hold your hand and treat you like you're "special".

+1 OP here. The Ivy grads we have interviewed definitely came across like they had been told they were god's gift to the world. Yet they are applying for jobs with a steep learning curve. Nobody wants to hire someone that doesn't think they have anything to learn, or who will assume they are smarter than anyone who went to a state school.

A students hire A+ students. B students hire C students.

Lol a person who thinks they have nothing to learn is not an A+ student. They are a nightmare. I will happily hire someone smarter than me. But the people who think they are smarter than me usually aren't. Not even close.

You do realize this is a delusion that nearly every reasonably bright person holds. Also, I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded.

I have worked with many people who are smarter/more capable than me, including interns. They may know it, but they don't act superior or disrespectful. The people who think they are smarter than me, and show it, are usually not very smart, or at least not capable of performing well in what my office does. I have absolutely seen a pattern among Ivy grads. It may be because where I work is a place many Ivy grads see as being below them, despite it being interesting work with decent pay. It's not something I am "projecting" - it's something that for example, every single person on an interview panel noticed about a particular candidate. It's people in high level leadership positions that are universally disliked because of how they treat the people they are supposed to be leading. Maybe they would be better leaders if they worked somewhere with more people they considered to be their equals. But since they don't, they do terribly.

So how many examples are you making this more generalized reasoning from??? There's going to be arrogant folks from all sorts of life. No need to link it to notions about "elite schools."

You really don't see how arrogance might be something that occurs at a higher rate among people who went to "elite schools"? Lol

I'm basing it on my direct experience: I have worked with hundreds of interns/grads and don't recognize the trends others are talking about--and my colleagues don't either. We give evaluations to all these people that include things like collaboration skills, learning from feedback, contribution to the team (rated by other team members) etc. and there aren't number trends that align with that bias either.

Okay? You don't see the trends, other people do. Nobody has done a real study on this so we'll never know.

But not only do I not see the trends, I don't trust that other people can do in an unbiased way based on more than their preconceived notions and a couple of experiences that they also see through their particular filter. Not to mention whether explicit agendas fit into the mix for some folks as some of the posts seem to suggest.

In other words you believe you know the truth and people who see things differently are wrong. Maybe you just don't mind arrogance because you are pretty arrogant yourself. And maybe that works in your field. It does not come across well in mine.

No, I believe that I cannot see the trends--I claim there is no discernible relationship between individual's willingness to learn/take feedback and school trends--and I don't trust that others can either. Because it's something that is very hard to see as an individual. I think of that as an appropriately humble stance.

In other words, you have an opinion on this (that there is no trend), you think people who think there is a trend are wrong, yet you think you are being "appropriately humble"? I think I can see where the disconnect is between you and me.

I just doubt that reflecting on the few people you encounter represents a trend no matter what--and I think that's a more humble position--recognizing the limits of what any person can know based on their limited experience and their biased brain. The null hypothesis so to speak would be that there is no difference between people no matter what school they go to--that people are people and they vary in arrogance based on a wide range of factors. You're the one asserting a hypothesis that the type of school you go to makes a difference and you haven't provided much evidence to support that.

Wow. You sound just like the Harvard intern I supervised. He tried to make arguments using what he learned in his HKS stats class, but couldn't see the forest through the trees. Where I work this type of BS won't get you far, but I get that in some places sounding smart, even if it makes no sense, is a valuable skill.

We each have different hypotheses based on our experiences. You are arguing that your experience is valid, and mine is not. That's not what humility is - I'm not sure if you actually don't know that, or that's what you've been taught to say to win an argument. But damn. Sounds like the Ivy grads I met and disliked would fit right in with you.

And you sound like you're missing the point. What you seem willing to argue is that your individual experience with a few Ivy interns gives you insight into an important trend. I'm not arguing a thing about my experience I'm just saying what you have described doesn't sound like a rational basis for claiming a trend.

Oh my goodness, yes you are. You wrote:

"I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded."

What I am saying is NEITHER one of us has proof either way that Ivy League grads are or aren't arrogant jerks. I am not claiming to have proof. I HAVE seen it several times, among several different people that I have interviewed or worked with closely and/or for long periods of time. Also classmates in a non-Ivy grad program that themselves graduated from Ivy league schools - they were truly insufferable because they very clearly and loudly felt they were too smart to be there. Does it happen with absolutely every Ivy grad? No - I have two very close colleagues that I've worked with for over a decade that attended Ivies back in the day and both are very smart (yes, smarter than me) and only one of them is arrogant. She is by far the most arrogant person in our workplace, which does not tend to attract arrogant people. I tend to see it the most obviously in recent grads. Are there incompetent people that aren't Ivy grads? Of course! But IME, which is obviously different from your experience, there is a certain brand of arrogance that can come with Ivy grads.

I said if "forced to take a stance" which is quite different than your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by folks calling some Ivy League grads as coddled? Coddled by whom?

by the school. Some elite schools treat their kids as "too big to fail", and don't want to impact their student body average GPA, so they let them withdraw up to the lat week before finals, whereas in big state schools, you can't withdraw that close to finals, and you just take the F or D or whatever, and make it up in the summer. And big state schools don't hold your hand and treat you like you're "special".

+1 OP here. The Ivy grads we have interviewed definitely came across like they had been told they were god's gift to the world. Yet they are applying for jobs with a steep learning curve. Nobody wants to hire someone that doesn't think they have anything to learn, or who will assume they are smarter than anyone who went to a state school.

A students hire A+ students. B students hire C students.

Lol a person who thinks they have nothing to learn is not an A+ student. They are a nightmare. I will happily hire someone smarter than me. But the people who think they are smarter than me usually aren't. Not even close.

You do realize this is a delusion that nearly every reasonably bright person holds. Also, I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded.

I have worked with many people who are smarter/more capable than me, including interns. They may know it, but they don't act superior or disrespectful. The people who think they are smarter than me, and show it, are usually not very smart, or at least not capable of performing well in what my office does. I have absolutely seen a pattern among Ivy grads. It may be because where I work is a place many Ivy grads see as being below them, despite it being interesting work with decent pay. It's not something I am "projecting" - it's something that for example, every single person on an interview panel noticed about a particular candidate. It's people in high level leadership positions that are universally disliked because of how they treat the people they are supposed to be leading. Maybe they would be better leaders if they worked somewhere with more people they considered to be their equals. But since they don't, they do terribly.

So how many examples are you making this more generalized reasoning from??? There's going to be arrogant folks from all sorts of life. No need to link it to notions about "elite schools."

You really don't see how arrogance might be something that occurs at a higher rate among people who went to "elite schools"? Lol

I'm basing it on my direct experience: I have worked with hundreds of interns/grads and don't recognize the trends others are talking about--and my colleagues don't either. We give evaluations to all these people that include things like collaboration skills, learning from feedback, contribution to the team (rated by other team members) etc. and there aren't number trends that align with that bias either.

Okay? You don't see the trends, other people do. Nobody has done a real study on this so we'll never know.

But not only do I not see the trends, I don't trust that other people can do in an unbiased way based on more than their preconceived notions and a couple of experiences that they also see through their particular filter. Not to mention whether explicit agendas fit into the mix for some folks as some of the posts seem to suggest.

In other words you believe you know the truth and people who see things differently are wrong. Maybe you just don't mind arrogance because you are pretty arrogant yourself. And maybe that works in your field. It does not come across well in mine.

No, I believe that I cannot see the trends--I claim there is no discernible relationship between individual's willingness to learn/take feedback and school trends--and I don't trust that others can either. Because it's something that is very hard to see as an individual. I think of that as an appropriately humble stance.

In other words, you have an opinion on this (that there is no trend), you think people who think there is a trend are wrong, yet you think you are being "appropriately humble"? I think I can see where the disconnect is between you and me.

I just doubt that reflecting on the few people you encounter represents a trend no matter what--and I think that's a more humble position--recognizing the limits of what any person can know based on their limited experience and their biased brain. The null hypothesis so to speak would be that there is no difference between people no matter what school they go to--that people are people and they vary in arrogance based on a wide range of factors. You're the one asserting a hypothesis that the type of school you go to makes a difference and you haven't provided much evidence to support that.

Wow. You sound just like the Harvard intern I supervised. He tried to make arguments using what he learned in his HKS stats class, but couldn't see the forest through the trees. Where I work this type of BS won't get you far, but I get that in some places sounding smart, even if it makes no sense, is a valuable skill.

We each have different hypotheses based on our experiences. You are arguing that your experience is valid, and mine is not. That's not what humility is - I'm not sure if you actually don't know that, or that's what you've been taught to say to win an argument. But damn. Sounds like the Ivy grads I met and disliked would fit right in with you.

And you sound like you're missing the point. What you seem willing to argue is that your individual experience with a few Ivy interns gives you insight into an important trend. I'm not arguing a thing about my experience I'm just saying what you have described doesn't sound like a rational basis for claiming a trend.

Oh my goodness, yes you are. You wrote:

"I have worked with hundreds of high-achieving interns/recent grads from all sorts of schools over time. I haven't found a significant pattern with type of school and their willingness to learn. If forced to take a stance on it, I would say I have found a slight trend for the students from elite schools a little more open to learning. If I wanted to come up with random ad hoc theories to explain it I might say perhaps because they are a little more used to being a small fish in a big pond in college than being constantly regarded as the top of the heap. One trend I *have* noticed is that there are always a few people at work who have a chip on their shoulder about elite schools and project all sorts of nonsense on the new employees But the majority of us don't see it (and we also come from a range of schools) and just sort of feel bad for the people who talk that way and try to steer the recent grads from having to interact with those folks as they are not fair-minded."

What I am saying is NEITHER one of us has proof either way that Ivy League grads are or aren't arrogant jerks. I am not claiming to have proof. I HAVE seen it several times, among several different people that I have interviewed or worked with closely and/or for long periods of time. Also classmates in a non-Ivy grad program that themselves graduated from Ivy league schools - they were truly insufferable because they very clearly and loudly felt they were too smart to be there. Does it happen with absolutely every Ivy grad? No - I have two very close colleagues that I've worked with for over a decade that attended Ivies back in the day and both are very smart (yes, smarter than me) and only one of them is arrogant. She is by far the most arrogant person in our workplace, which does not tend to attract arrogant people. I tend to see it the most obviously in recent grads. Are there incompetent people that aren't Ivy grads? Of course! But IME, which is obviously different from your experience, there is a certain brand of arrogance that can come with Ivy grads.

I said if "forced to take a stance" which is quite different than your point.

It's clear that you don't see much of a trend and feel very strongly about that, and are trying to argue that your stance is objective and people who have a different opinion are not only biased but "have a chip on their shoulder". And then you call yourself "humble". Of course you like the Ivy league grads. They fit right in with you.

[Anonymous]

Nate is correct, but many alums here don’t want to hear the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended Stanford for undergrad, and then a flagship state school ranked around #100 for a fully-funded master's degree. I was a TA for undergraduate courses at the state school. Huge difference. A few things stand out to me:

*The amount of work expected of undergraduates at Stanford was significantly more than the state school. I was used to reading at least half a book a week per class at Stanford (and typically an entire book). At the state school the typical reading load was 20-30 pages out of a textbook, and not a real scholarly book. The writing requirements were similarly low. Two 3-page papers, a midterm, and a final at the state school for an intro class. An intro course at Stanford was a 5-page paper, a 10-page paper, a midterm, and a final. I was used to writing papers in the 15-30 page range, which is more typical of graduate requirements at the state school.

*Stanford encouraged "big" thinking--engaging with big ideas, taking risks. I felt like the state school had me in the weeds, writing about obscure things instead of working at a higher level. Part of that may be undergraduate vs. graduate study, but when I returned to the top-5 for law school, I found myself once again in the "big thinking" world.

None of this is to say that you can't find state schools with rigorous requirements, but I think you really have to move up a lot in the rankings if that's what you're looking for. And this isn't a product of the caliber of the professors--most of the state school professors went to places like Stanford. It was the other students--a professor told me he used to assign more work, but the students just wouldn't do it and eventually he gave in.

This is exactly my experience at my top10 and my kids’ experience at their different T10/ivies. The rigourous expectations are highest when the peer group is at the top level, which means T10-15/ivy