Why is it so hard to accept that the students at better colleges are simply better students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

This answer is a perfect encapsulation of why it makes sense to side-eye T10 grads. Overly defensive, has nothing substantive to add, and betrays a very sensitive ego.

Buy multiple homes, cars, diamonds if that is what time you on. Enjoy.

Put down the bottle, my T10 friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

And you can do that at any four-year university in the US.

Ikr? Every math department is exactly the same

Except they aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Selective grad schools, law schools and med schools all disagree with you. They admit from elite undergrads, but most admits aren't and there are many admits from even very low ranked schools. You have a second chance to shine in undergrad and professional programs are happy to snatch up those who didn't attend an elite school, but who proved themselves as in undergrad.

Seriously, go look at the list of admits at Harvard Law or Yale Law and you'll be surprised. It's not at all dominated by T20 grads.

Most grad schools are not selective. And at selective grad programs, those random no-name colleges you see on their class lists are generally hooked applicants.

[Anonymous]

So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s DD was accepted to Yale last year. They are middle class. She is not going to Yale due to $$. You will say “anecdata!” but there it is.

Nobody believes these lies. Let me guess, she ended up at the local state school instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s DD was accepted to Yale last year. They are middle class. She is not going to Yale due to $$. You will say “anecdata!” but there it is.

Nobody believes these lies. Let me guess, she ended up at the local state school instead.

Yale schmale. Who needs it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

Hon, the reason those kids make more money is because they all know and hire each other, and then each other's kids. It's nothing to do with making 'better employees.' The term you're looking for is 'nepotism.' You wouldn't know the term, of course; they called it 'merit' at your 'better school,' to make you and the other gentlemen's C students feel better about your poor sweet little mediocre selves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

You're right about the BS on DCUM, but wrong about whose dishing it out.

Read Kruger and Dale, then you'll understand how wrong you are about salaries. Yes, average salaries may be higher for grads of elite schools, but that's due to the average individual having higher ability and ambition, not to anything the college did. If the same student were to attend Rutgers instead of Princeton, they'd be making the same amount throughout their career. Tim Cook as a grad of Auburn is just as successful as he would have been as a grad of Yale.

Employers think that highly capable, ambitious people who work well in a team make better employees, regardless of what college they attended. There are more of that kind of person at elite colleges because those colleges get first choice, but employers will take them from wherever they can get them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

You're right about the BS on DCUM, but wrong about whose dishing it out.

Read Kruger and Dale, then you'll understand how wrong you are about salaries. Yes, average salaries may be higher for grads of elite schools, but that's due to the average individual having higher ability and ambition, not to anything the college did. If the same student were to attend Rutgers instead of Princeton, they'd be making the same amount throughout their career. Tim Cook as a grad of Auburn is just as successful as he would have been as a grad of Yale.

Employers think that highly capable, ambitious people who work well in a team make better employees, regardless of what college they attended. There are more of that kind of person at elite colleges because those colleges get first choice, but employers will take them from wherever they can get them.

Oops, that should read who's, not whose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s DD was accepted to Yale last year. They are middle class. She is not going to Yale due to $$. You will say “anecdata!” but there it is.

Nobody believes these lies. Let me guess, she ended up at the local state school instead.

Your head is in the sand. Top students are priced out of “top” schools. This has always been true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the quibbling, it is accurate to say that the AVERAGE student at a highly-ranked school is better academically than the AVERAGE student at a significantly lower-ranked school. While there are students at the higher-ranked school who might have lower test scores than the top student at a lower-ranked school, that is comparing apples and oranges. If one wants to complain about legacy, URM, and athletes at better schools, one must compare them to legacy, URM, and athletes at lower-ranked schools. Again, compare apples to apples. Finally, for those students who turn down Yale for a full ride at a much lower-rated school, the case doesn’t dispute that the AVERAGE student at Yale is better academically than at the alternative institution. Instead, it just means that they’re is some, perhaps little, overlap between the best students at lower-ranked schools and the low-end of the best schools. Even then, the education at the two schools is very different.

When athletes and URM have lower gpas, test scores and stats, which they most often do, your statement is inaccurate.

False.

And please keep ignoring the fact that a recruited athlete with a 1400+ SAT at a T20 school got there while ALSO outworking every other high school athlete in the country. Someone shows up with a 95th percentile score and stats in their sports that are good enough for many professional leagues - and then you cr*p all over them for not having a 99th percentile SAT score.

These recruited athletes (some URM, some not) are anything but AVERAGE.

You troll

Yummy! You were delicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

Hon, the reason those kids make more money is because they all know and hire each other, and then each other's kids. It's nothing to do with making 'better employees.' The term you're looking for is 'nepotism.' You wouldn't know the term, of course; they called it 'merit' at your 'better school,' to make you and the other gentlemen's C students feel better about your poor sweet little mediocre selves.

Hon, if you think every single Ivy grad is personally known to thousands of employers and HR departments across the land, you are truly deluded. That's not how it works. What is happening is that the HR departments and hiring managers get countless applications from countless kids they don't even know, and they are putting the elite school grads at the top of the stack to get interviewed under the assumption (whether you like it or not) that these are smart kids and good students. And then those kids interview well so they get hired.

After that, an elite diploma might be enough to get you in the door but if you don't perform, you won't get promoted. The fact that the grads of top schools do better 20 years after graduating than kids of lesser schools shows that the elite grads are, indeed, performing.

But keep coping that your kid who went to some crappy state school has only been held back due to nepotism, lol.

[Anonymous]

No. We are just far easier to sell. I don't even have to drop the bomb. My employers do it for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selective grad schools, law schools and med schools all disagree with you. They admit from elite undergrads, but most admits aren't and there are many admits from even very low ranked schools. You have a second chance to shine in undergrad and professional programs are happy to snatch up those who didn't attend an elite school, but who proved themselves as in undergrad.

Seriously, go look at the list of admits at Harvard Law or Yale Law and you'll be surprised. It's not at all dominated by T20 grads.

Most grad schools are not selective. And at selective grad programs, those random no-name colleges you see on their class lists are generally hooked applicants.

So you think the kid that went to Appalachian State or Florida International University just saved their hook so they could use it to get into Harvard for grad school? They were just saving it for later? Or did their parents become billionaire donors while they were in college? Nope.

I was one of those kids. Got into a T20, but turned it down for a tier 4 because I needed a full ride. I also got into a top grad school, fully funded, and ultimately got my PhD from a Nobel Laureate. How? I applied and got funding to do research with very respected professors during each summer of undergrad so I had several top tier publications and amazing recommendation letters. No hooks. Just hard work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

And you’ll just have to accept that there are many people who aren’t worried about rank and prestige. Will you be a good employee? Will you be a good fit for the climate we cultivate? Awesome, and you’re hired. I don’t care where you went to school. I probably won’t even ask or pay attention to it on your resume.

If prestige is this important to you, then feel free to chase it. You’ll just have to accept that there many people who don’t want to join your race. And no, it’s not because we can’t compete. We just don’t care.