Why do people insist that their kid can always "go to an Ivy for grad school?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you become a lawyer, doctor, professor or other without graduate school. Please explain.

The bolded is a dying profession so don’t bother with that. Don’t bother with non-T14 law on scholarship, either.

Okay let's think about this for a moment... if becoming a professor is a dying profession.. (a profession that usually requires a PhD, and some in Humanities)... WHO will be teaching your children at the Super Top schools that DCUMdom is obsessing over?

ChatGPT? Investment Bankers who graduated from Ivies.. or the ones who struck it so rich in Wall Street in their first 3 years that they can enjoy the "leisurely" schedule of a professor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

I think your perception of where and how most top firms recruit undergrads is outdated. They have faced a lot of backlash for being too focused on a handful of schools and have actively taken measures not to do it at the undergrad level.

At the grad school level, it absolutely still happens all the time that employers really only hire from a handful of schools. Top eng, business, and law schools still provide huge advantages. Your PhD example is one where the school is even more important. The percentage of professors who have advanced degrees from top schools is huge (not even just at R1s) even though so many schools offer the degrees that usually take 5+ years to complete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

Wow. And suddenly I fully understand why the world has gone to hell in a opportunistic handbasket.
Ah, DCUM - aka "4chan for 1%ers".

[Anonymous]

Professors in a variety of fields can do very well consulting, advising, and speaking (in the 5 or 6 figures annually). I might have written it off until I learned more. Now I wish I had gone that route myself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

It's a cope. Many (most?) Ivy grad schools are just degree mill scams. Nobody is going to think your kid has "pedigree" because they have a bachelor's from Tailgate State and an MPA from Penn or a random master's from Columbia.

Let's face it: Columbia undergrad degree idoesn"t confer "pedigree" either. Neither does Penn, Northwestern and their ilk.

HYPSM undergrad, on the other hand, are prestigious enough that they're worth paying for.

This. Columbia is a no-name school whose reputation has been tarnished in the news scandal. Northwestern and Penn are better, but not that prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Professors in a variety of fields can do very well consulting, advising, and speaking (in the 5 or 6 figures annually). I might have written it off until I learned more. Now I wish I had gone that route myself!

Only true in STEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i don't know op. i know one kid who graduated from umd engineering who got accepted to stanford phd program but turned it down and accepted berkeley offer.

I don't see how this is relevant, but Stanford/Berkeley Ph.D. in engineering is genuinely difficult and students have to compete with a lot of top internationals especially from India/China/Russia.

A lot of Ivy M.A/M.S. programs meanwhile are cash-grabs so much easier to get into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

It's a cope. Many (most?) Ivy grad schools are just degree mill scams. Nobody is going to think your kid has "pedigree" because they have a bachelor's from Tailgate State and an MPA from Penn or a random master's from Columbia.

Let's face it: Columbia undergrad degree idoesn"t confer "pedigree" either. Neither does Penn, Northwestern and their ilk.

HYPSM undergrad, on the other hand, are prestigious enough that they're worth paying for.

This. Columbia is a no-name school whose reputation has been tarnished in the news scandal. Northwestern and Penn are better, but not that prestigious.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole premise of OP's statement is wrong. It's been demonstrated ad nauseum by many people that top firms want top people, not diplomas from colleges everyone has heard of. Here's a list of references. I'd love to see OP's support for their statement.

Dale and Kruger, a peer-reviewed study of outcomes for college grads comparing elite colleges to their backups.

Less High School Stress (website cited frequently on DCUM with tons of data looking at this from multiple angles.

LinkedIn, on which anyone can do their own research and see from which colleges any firm is hiring.

Harvard Schmarvard (book by Jay Mathews)

Where You Go is not Who You'll Be (book by Frank Bruni)

Numerous DCUM threads.

Lol. Bruni grew up rich and graduated from an elite boarding school (Loomis Chaffee). That alone made him pedigreed. He allegedly only went to UNC because it was 100% free. I think he turned down Yale? Then he went to Columbia for their journalism master's.

Please tell me the logic you're using to try to discredit Mr. Bruni isn't in charge of anything important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

You sound lovely.

[Anonymous]

OP please get a real issue to be dramatic over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

Awful? If my kid went to an ivy for a PhD in biology and then got a fed job they cared about, I would consider it a great success. More than if they were an investment banker actually. Money is important as you say. But how you get to $180k research career being “poor” is truly beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

I don't think anyone is arguing that going to an Ivy and then McKinsey isn't lucrative, which is all you've really shown here. Yes. If your kid does that, they can live in a 3000 square foot house in a tony suburb and pay for private school. If they do something else, they mind end up in a townhouse or an apartment (or a SFH not in the big city metro area) and go to public school. Lots of people live that second life and are very happy.

Exactly. I was laughing at the "would you want your kid to go to an Ivy for a PhD in biology and become a government scientist? That would be awful!" because that's us, baby! Yes, our house is small and our kids go to public school, and one of us has a long commute 1-2x a week because dual careers with PhDs can be challenging that way (the other has a very flexible schedule and can walk or bike to work). AWFUL. JUST AWFUL!!

I think going into your 30s with almost no savings (as is the case for most PhDs) would be pretty awful. Especially if you're a woman entering peak childbirth age.

And I think giving up three years of your 20’s, when you are at your peak creativity, to a consulting job, is awful. Luckily we can each choose our own adventure in this whole life thing.

[Anonymous]

You don't see many leaders or even young junior execs these days with only an undergrad degree (regardless of the elite school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

Wow. And suddenly I fully understand why the world has gone to hell in a opportunistic handbasket.
Ah, DCUM - aka "4chan for 1%ers".

so true