Why is this board obsessed with prestige?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they're insecure and shallow. The majority of them come from small towns and moved to the DMV to "make it big" and think they need to brag to be worthy. It's sad.

This. Whenever I tell people where my son goes to college, the strivers usually say “Never heard of it.” That’s the end of that conversation for them.

Most ambitious parents and kids wouldn’t want to end up at some CTCL in podunk, nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Is this an honest question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who don’t think a good school matters are the ROI/tech folks. They think that a high-paying job is the litmus test for a successful college experience. People who aim go to highly-selective school value more than a big salary. Sure, they want that, but are first and foremost interested in the educational experience and the quality of the student peer group. Students at the best schools “know” they will make bank, if they want to, thus it’s not the focus of their education, but a result of it. Firms who hire kids from the best schools want smart, interesting, socially adept kids who have demonstrated leadership, teamwork, and persistence. A kid with an English, history, or Econ degree who might also be a college/club athlete will do just as well or better than a CS major at state U.

LOL no those schools are full of ALDC previlleged kids, and those kids major in easy stuff.
(i.e. recently 43% of Harvard White kids are ALDC)

You actually find those kids in a tier lower schools like T20-50.

Exactly. If an unhooked kid goes to Harvard and majors in something easy, they are screwed.

Absolutely not. Many unhooked kids who major in something easy go on to do consulting or finance or bizdev/growth at a tech company

Data doesn't agree with you for the 100th times.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-University&fos_code=2301&fos_credential=3
3 year out Harvard English $43,842, history $60,343, Psychology $52,583


UMD CS = 100K

1) Not everyone wants to do Computer Science;
2) Someone has to tell the programmers what to program; and
3) your job can be outsourced to India in the blink of an eye...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

I forgot to add my main point about the bold. Smart kids are probably going to graduate in 4 years or less regardless of where they go. Students at more prestigious colleges tend to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they got into those colleges; they're good students. Students who got choose to go to a mediocre college when they had the qualifications to go a prestigious college are more likely to be graduate in 4 years(probably even less considering they may have a year's worth of AP credits the prestigious colleges wouldn't have accepted) from that mediocre college for the same reason they could've gone to a prestigious college; they're good students. However, students who go to mediocre colleges because they didn't have the option of going anywhere better are more likely to drop out or taking longer to graduate for the same reason they couldn't get into anywhere better; they not good students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

I forgot to add my main point about the bold. Smart kids are probably going to graduate in 4 years or less regardless of where they go. Students at more prestigious colleges tend to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they got into those colleges; they're good students. Students who got choose to go to a mediocre college when they had the qualifications to go a prestigious college are more likely to be graduate in 4 years(probably even less considering they may have a year's worth of AP credits the prestigious colleges wouldn't have accepted) from that mediocre college for the same reason they could've gone to a prestigious college; they're good students. However, students who go to mediocre colleges because they didn't have the option of going anywhere better are more likely to drop out or taking longer to graduate for the same reason they couldn't get into anywhere better; they not good students.

Excellent post.

[Anonymous]

Entitlement. Insecurity. Some want to see ROI for all the dough they dropped on private school, travel sports, music lessons, summer camps, tutors, etc. And some people are just snobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

It does matter a lot. I know the research and simply do not buy it. The difference between UMD and Stanford is massive. Frankly the difference between UVA and UMD is massive and I am not a UVA fan. Simply put where you go (and how you do there) matters in terms of opening many pathways. Does that mean that if you go to UMD you have no chance? Of course not but there are less pathways to take you there. A smart kid will do well anywhere but may not have the same options depending on where you go.

What do you mean the difference between UVA and UMD is massive? For what? UMD's STEM programs are universally ranked higher than UVA and very well respected. And for the record, I attended neither school so have no dog in this fight.

Sure you can find a major where one school is better. But in general UVA will get you places UMD can't. I would argue that is true in STEM as well but happy to agree with you.

Such utter nonsense. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

It does matter a lot. I know the research and simply do not buy it. The difference between UMD and Stanford is massive. Frankly the difference between UVA and UMD is massive and I am not a UVA fan. Simply put where you go (and how you do there) matters in terms of opening many pathways. Does that mean that if you go to UMD you have no chance? Of course not but there are less pathways to take you there. A smart kid will do well anywhere but may not have the same options depending on where you go.

What do you mean the difference between UVA and UMD is massive? For what? UMD's STEM programs are universally ranked higher than UVA and very well respected. And for the record, I attended neither school so have no dog in this fight.

Sure you can find a major where one school is better. But in general UVA will get you places UMD can't. I would argue that is true in STEM as well but happy to agree with you.

Not one major. All STEM majors. Try again.

[Anonymous]

I was the only person at my junior summer internship who was attending a podunk college. All the other interns were at t30 and above schools and would constantly reminisce about their college experiences with the full-time employees who attended the same schools. Only one of the interns had heard of my school. The funny thing is this was in a supposedly very high-demand field where you wouldn’t think “prestige” matters much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

I forgot to add my main point about the bold. Smart kids are probably going to graduate in 4 years or less regardless of where they go. Students at more prestigious colleges tend to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they got into those colleges; they're good students. Students who got choose to go to a mediocre college when they had the qualifications to go a prestigious college are more likely to be graduate in 4 years(probably even less considering they may have a year's worth of AP credits the prestigious colleges wouldn't have accepted) from that mediocre college for the same reason they could've gone to a prestigious college; they're good students. However, students who go to mediocre colleges because they didn't have the option of going anywhere better are more likely to drop out or taking longer to graduate for the same reason they couldn't get into anywhere better; they not good students.

You’re mixing correlation with causation.

A major reason kids don’t graduate in 4 years/drop out is finances. Parents scrape together money for year 1, maybe year 2, then they run out of options. The theme that runs through here is privilege. At top schools, students more likely have privilege and are therefore more likely to have the support to graduate on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

I forgot to add my main point about the bold. Smart kids are probably going to graduate in 4 years or less regardless of where they go. Students at more prestigious colleges tend to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they got into those colleges; they're good students. Students who got choose to go to a mediocre college when they had the qualifications to go a prestigious college are more likely to be graduate in 4 years(probably even less considering they may have a year's worth of AP credits the prestigious colleges wouldn't have accepted) from that mediocre college for the same reason they could've gone to a prestigious college; they're good students. However, students who go to mediocre colleges because they didn't have the option of going anywhere better are more likely to drop out or taking longer to graduate for the same reason they couldn't get into anywhere better; they not good students.

You’re mixing correlation with causation.

A major reason kids don’t graduate in 4 years/drop out is finances. Parents scrape together money for year 1, maybe year 2, then they run out of options. The theme that runs through here is privilege. At top schools, students more likely have privilege and are therefore more likely to have the support to graduate on time.

Also, the student-to-faculty ratio tends to be smaller at top schools, meaning that it's easier for professors to give their students the help they need to graduate on time. Top schools also tend to have better advisement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

I forgot to add my main point about the bold. Smart kids are probably going to graduate in 4 years or less regardless of where they go. Students at more prestigious colleges tend to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they got into those colleges; they're good students. Students who got choose to go to a mediocre college when they had the qualifications to go a prestigious college are more likely to be graduate in 4 years(probably even less considering they may have a year's worth of AP credits the prestigious colleges wouldn't have accepted) from that mediocre college for the same reason they could've gone to a prestigious college; they're good students. However, students who go to mediocre colleges because they didn't have the option of going anywhere better are more likely to drop out or taking longer to graduate for the same reason they couldn't get into anywhere better; they not good students.

You’re mixing correlation with causation.

A major reason kids don’t graduate in 4 years/drop out is finances. Parents scrape together money for year 1, maybe year 2, then they run out of options. The theme that runs through here is privilege. At top schools, students more likely have privilege and are therefore more likely to have the support to graduate on time.

A lack of natural intelligence is also a major reason. No amount of money can compensate for that. The days have long gone where parents can buy passing grades from their kids' professors. That's illegal. If you want something, you have to work for it. Having rich parents isn't enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

I forgot to add my main point about the bold. Smart kids are probably going to graduate in 4 years or less regardless of where they go. Students at more prestigious colleges tend to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they got into those colleges; they're good students. Students who got choose to go to a mediocre college when they had the qualifications to go a prestigious college are more likely to be graduate in 4 years(probably even less considering they may have a year's worth of AP credits the prestigious colleges wouldn't have accepted) from that mediocre college for the same reason they could've gone to a prestigious college; they're good students. However, students who go to mediocre colleges because they didn't have the option of going anywhere better are more likely to drop out or taking longer to graduate for the same reason they couldn't get into anywhere better; they not good students.

Almost no one chooses to go to a "mediocre" college when they could've gone to a "prestigious" college. They choose to go to Penn State instead of Carnegie Mellon. Or Maryland instead of Hopkins. Or BU instead of Harvard. Penn State, Maryland and BU are not 'mediocre' colleges.

It would be foolish to argue that students at the less 'prestigious' colleges in each pair are just as capable on average as those at the more 'prestigious' schools. And neither OP nor Dale and Krueger makes this argument.

What Dale and Krueger, a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, shows is that the differences between the pairs of colleges above are not enough to make any difference in outcomes for students capable of being successful at either in the pair. In other words, a student with 1550 on their SAT and a 4.5 GPA will have the same likelihood of being successful regardless of whether they choose Penn State or Penn. And that's the point OP is making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad prestige does NOT matter. At all. It’s been empirically proven. Smart kids do well anywhere, whether they’re at UMD or Stanford.

Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger. Dale and Kruger!!!

This is the most valid point. Very few people are saying that prestige is everything, but to act like it's nothing is ludicrous. One obvious trend that better universities generally have better students is the fact that at prestigious colleges, the vast majority of students graduate in 4 years. On the other hand, the dropout rates are much higher at non-prestigious universities, as well as the students taking longer the 4 years to graduate. I think we can all agree that students who graduate in 4 years are better students than those who take longer or drop out altogether. Thus, since students at better colleges generally graduate in a more timely manner than those at worse colleges, students at better colleges are, GENERALLY, better students.

It depends---why do the students not graduate in 4 years? Is it because there are 20-25% First Gen students, are they 20-25% low income students, do majority of their STEM students do a coop, what percent are Foreign students who for whatever reason decide to transfer or take a semester off, etc. There are so many reasons. For first gen students, no matter how much the college does to help, some of those kids might miss taking a course the correct semester and need to add a semester to get all courses in, or they might need to take a lower course load for a semester or two because they are working to help pay for School (take 12 credits, not 16/17 and work 20-25 hours)---they don't have someone at home to guide them thru this process, as they are the first to do it.
Similarly for lower income, they might drop out due to expenses or take a semester off as they figure out how to pay for the next year (or to work)----family might have financial issues and need them at home to help with other kids, etc.
It does not mean these kids are not as "smart" or as "good of students". It just means they don't live the same privileged life that your kids do.

If school has a large Engineering school, there is a good chance those kids are taking more than 4 years---it's an intensive major, so many need an extra semester to fit in all courses (most engineering programs take 10-12 credits more than even a Chem/Bio major requires). If kids do Co-ops, then they will certainly take 5-6 years to graduate as engineers. I don't view that as a bad thing---coop is an awesome part of the experience, yet it will "ruin the 4 year grad rate".

So to me, as long as the 5 year grad rate is at least 85-90% I'm good. I'm smart enough to realize that the main reason kids take longer/drop out has more to do with the kid's home environment than their "smarts".