Do T20s actually matter?

[Anonymous]

the launching point is sooo much higher from a T20

doesn’t mean that’s how it will end up - but it’s a better starting point 💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do elite schools actually matter? Besides prestige and connections, what are the pros?

I have heard from parents of MIT kids of them getting summer research internship and earning 50K over 3 months which pretty much covers the difference between in-state and out of state tuition (MIT does not give any merit based scholarship since it is pretty much the whole school; only need based scholarship). After graduation I have seen them earning twice more than my salary after 20 years of exp in IT. Lot of T20 school kids end up starting their own startups as well with their classmates. There is a reason why students and parents (like us) crave for top schools.

Kids starting companies are already connected and have money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cute, but most companies don’t have a single “hiring manager” with plenary power to hire candidates. The candidates get screened, often by a committee, then interviewed, usually by direct and indirect supervisors. Then some sort of feedback is elicited and at least a soft consensus built. So no the hiring manager doesn’t get thrown under the bus if someone doesn’t work out. They are more likely to get in trouble for screening out someone with a high GPA in a target major even from a non-elite college.

maybe this is how it works in ur snowflake world. In the real world AI screens first batch - and in the jobs kids want (IB, Consulting, and Tech), the final decision will be ur boss, or hiring manager - welcome to 2024

"the jobs kids want" -- which kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

This.
The networking. The connections. The opportunities.

I went to a T-20 in the 90s and my siblings did not. There’s a huge divergence in earnings and peer group (my college friends and their outcomes compared to theirs)….

Agree with this. I went to a top Ivy, sibling did not. We both did fine in our careers and lives, but we went on to very different paths. And the people we associate with now are very, very different.

More people have opposite anecdotes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

+1. LOL. This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do elite schools actually matter? Besides prestige and connections, what are the pros?

I have heard from parents of MIT kids of them getting summer research internship and earning 50K over 3 months which pretty much covers the difference between in-state and out of state tuition (MIT does not give any merit based scholarship since it is pretty much the whole school; only need based scholarship). After graduation I have seen them earning twice more than my salary after 20 years of exp in IT. Lot of T20 school kids end up starting their own startups as well with their classmates. There is a reason why students and parents (like us) crave for top schools.

Kids starting companies are already connected and have money.

DP here. Not the ones that I know! You sound very naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do elite schools actually matter? Besides prestige and connections, what are the pros?

I have heard from parents of MIT kids of them getting summer research internship and earning 50K over 3 months which pretty much covers the difference between in-state and out of state tuition (MIT does not give any merit based scholarship since it is pretty much the whole school; only need based scholarship). After graduation I have seen them earning twice more than my salary after 20 years of exp in IT. Lot of T20 school kids end up starting their own startups as well with their classmates. There is a reason why students and parents (like us) crave for top schools.

Kids starting companies are already connected and have money.

DP here. Not the ones that I know! You sound very naive.

Agree. Multiple startups i am personally aware of were by non-connected kids who got the tools and peers from their top schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

A nonprofit. Their work is very important!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

So, what job is acceptable for your kid? Sounds like the entire private sector doesn’t qualify.

A nonprofit. Their work is very important!

Plenty of evil non-profits. How about all the hospital systems that bankrupt poor patients that can’t pay and pay their CEOs tens of millions.

Perhaps let your kid pursue what they want in life and not your version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

Quality of the peer group is indeed an important factor.
However many selective T50ish schools have close to that level of quality student bodies.

Also the connection thing is not a reliable factor at all for common students. It's a matter of luck.

Major is more important than the school name these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

Quality of the peer group is indeed an important factor.
However many selective T50ish schools have close to that level of quality student bodies.

Also the connection thing is not a reliable factor at all for common students. It's a matter of luck.

Major is more important than the school name these days.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

With holistic admissions and current preferences for athletes, first gen and pell grant eligible, this is not true, Lots if kids at T50 or even T75 who have stats for T20 but didn’t get in due to the aforementioned preferences, were hurt by average ecs, or college’s desire for geographical diversity.

The issue is do these kids ever get the jobs at Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, McKinsey, Bain in the numbers - on a per capita basis - compared to the top 25 schools?
The answer is they don’t. At least not yet. Maybe that will change in the next decade.

I would be extremely disappointed if my kids ended up at a Goldman or a Blackstone, etc., so I'd say opinions differ about the "quality" of a peer group that is gunning in that direction.

Agree 100%. I want my kids to have an impact on the world/others. And not an impact like the big corporations.

To each his own, I guess.

Big corporations literally impact the world you rube. That's the reason they exist. My God you people are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quality of the peer group is vastly different vs. non T20 IMO.

Quality of the peer group is indeed an important factor.
However many selective T50ish schools have close to that level of quality student bodies.

Also the connection thing is not a reliable factor at all for common students. It's a matter of luck.

Major is more important than the school name these days.

T50 schools on average have less than 25% of students from the 98-99th%ile. T10-15 have over 75%. Classes can be run at a faster pace, more indepth discussion, just not the same at all.

Any major from a top school can land a great job: MBB, Jane Street, Goldman hire English and other non-Econ, non-tech majors from T10s, and from the median "average" group of grads, not just the top sector of students. English majors go to Big3 LAW schools and top med schools from T10s. 99% of MBB new hires come from 20 schools.
Anything is possible from a top school.