What’s the point of going to a top school if you end up in the same place as someone who didn’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why go to a Michelin 5 Star restaurant when you can get your dinner for much less at McDonald’s?

Our current President prefers Mickey-Ds. He’s especially partial to the McFish Fillet with a coke. And, wouldn’t you know it …he hates the Ivies as much as Michelin star restaurants. Lol

[Anonymous]

How do you measure “ending up in the same place”? You can’t know where the road not taken will lead. That’s not snarky. It’s reality. I’ve seen very bright kids at the tops the HS class crash and burn, need to take time off, go on academic probation, be weeded out of something like Engineering or pre-med, decide to transfer colleges, and in one case drop out entirely and enter skilled trades. And this is from kids in a mix or reaches, targets and safeties. Some schools are just bad matches for certain kid— academically, socially, emotionally. And it’s hard for your specific kid to get a great outcome at a bad match.

“Outcomes” are an often cherry picked metric of where **some** kids end up. But, for example, you can’t measure engineering outcomes from a college that weeds out 50%+ of freshmen and sophomores engineering majors vs one that weeds out 20%.

A real life example. My DC is a IR major at W&M. Which is is a “weed out major,” with weed out classes”. Specifically, you need 5-6 semesters of econ and 6 semesters of a modern language to graduate (plus a lot of history, government, some sociology, actual It classes, a capstone etc). And even if you pass the intro Econ and foreign language classes and are on track after 4 semesters, you still have to apply and be accepted into IR.

DD was accepted to IR. Her roommate struggled with econ and came out with a C and a D in the intro classes and was not admitted to IR. Other kids DD knew could manage the 5 days a week for years of foreign language. This kids often major in government, instead, which is basically IR for kids who can’t handle the breadth and rigor of IR. IR placement from WM is impressive. But, it doesn’t include every kid who wants the major. WM has fantastic Ir outcome, but is it better than a school that doesn’t gate keep and allows “weaker” students to major?

Now, this is my kids college. Which I’m not afraid to question. And I see the value of stopping a kid who can’t pull a C in intro econ or intro foreign language from declaring a major that will require 4-5 harder, more advanced classes in these departments. But, they are weeding kids out.

You also cannot measure med school outcomes from colleges that support any kid who wants to apply vs one that counsels a decent percentage of kids off the pre-med track/ won’t write recommendations for all applicants.

And you can’t account for serendipity. I went to a T25 college best known as pre-professional. In the 1990s. No one was counseling me on outcomes. I went in pre-med, hated it, and ultimately wanted a humanities PhD I was rejected from 8/8 PhD programs— as a phi beta kappa, summa, 98% GRE score. No one had asked me my goal, mentored me, given me access research or publishing options, sent me to conference. And my college never sent kids to humanities PhD.

I was accepted at 3 T10 law schools and all 8 that I applied for— with the same GPA that got me rejected from PhD programs and an LSAT above 170. So, with an English major, law school it was. But to be fair, I started as pre-med, so lack of a humanities PhD pipeline would not have deterred me.

And here the real serendipity. I was a quiet hardworking, nice, kind nerdy kid in undergrad and law school. And have help three legal jobs. 2 of which I got through undergrad or law school connections/ friends in very weird, right place, right time ways. Through college and law school friends (genuine, I’ve stayed close for 25+ year friends, still exchange Christmas card friends— not me and my 100 sorority sisters).

I’m now a Fed dealing with DOGE. I practice in a very niche area of lawwith minimal (but some) private practice applications. I am not likely to be RIF’d but my agency is miserable, and getting worse, and we are losing the ability to fulfill our mission. And sure enough, a law school friend reached out to ask if I was interested in taking one of the very few jobs out there that I am super qualified to do, by virtue of my federal niche. Prefect job. Perfect timing. I start in a month.

Now, are my excellent outcomes in the working world a result of my undergrad and law school? Yes, to the extent the friends I made have recommended me for jobs. Would I have had a similar outcome at a different, lower ranked schools? Did I make my own luck by developing the reputation if being nice, honest, hard working, smart etc? Or are people hiring me 25 years after law school and 30 after college based on the college name and the phi beta kappa?

I guess I’ll never know. But it’s hard to believe an impressive undergrad or law school name would still be getting me hired if I were mean or incompetent.

I think your school name (and sometimes grades and recommendations and internships, depending on whether the goal is a job or grad school) gets you your first grad school or job. After that, alum network can help— but maybe in unpredictable ways.

And, I know I’m lot more likely to get behind/ recommend someone whose character, personality, work ethic and work product I know first hand than a random alum of my school.

My vote— the strongest academic/ reputation— in your kids field, not as ranked by USNWR or the whole school— **that is a good for for them and where they can see themselves being happy**. But don’t take undergrad debt out for “the dream school”. Paying back the debt can locks into making a certain income, which can actually limit your career path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, wouldn’t you know it …he hates the Ivies as much as Michelin star restaurants. Lol

No he mostly hates Harvard and Columbia. Three of his kids went to Penn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

This is the most embarrassing, striver-y comment I’ve ever read on this site, which is quite the accomplishment. Well done.

Actually, this entire thread is a good reminder of how much this forum is filled with insecure social climbers and desperate immigrant strivers.

And those who realize it will so difficult to get in an Ivy League that they start making excuses with idiotic questions like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Thank you, this is it. People here might object to this poster, but this the sad truth. Ivy family here. #3 is 100% on point. If your kid is going crazy trying to keep up and struggling with no life to try to make it, then maybe, just maybe, she is better off not going to one of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, wouldn’t you know it …he hates the Ivies as much as Michelin star restaurants. Lol

No he mostly hates Harvard and Columbia. Three of his kids went to Penn.

All of them are getting cuts. He refers to all of them as elites. His youngest chose NYU, not an Ivy or his Alma mater.

[Anonymous]

He hates them because 98.78% of their faculty thinks Orange man is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

I'll say that most students don't go into a top college because they groomed themselves selectively for it. They were top students, and thought they might as well put their application into a top college.

For the average student, it really doesn't change their trajectory much unless they grew up low income. But for the top students, it is truly the best environment to be and they tend to be industry leaders, full professors, and top researchers in the future. Look at the dominance of Stanford in the tech/VC space or Harvard in biotech and bioengineering. If you have high risk tolerance, this could be the start of a foundational journey backed by limitless resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Well first it's about the education not just the outcomes. Peer group really matters to the overall experience. Second, for outcomes, yes it is true that you *can* get to the same place with a degree from Yale or Podunk U, there are many more successful Yale grads. So can does not mean will.

[Anonymous]

All of these T10 going schmucks are on an anonymous forum yapping like everyone else.

#overrated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, wouldn’t you know it …he hates the Ivies as much as Michelin star restaurants. Lol

No he mostly hates Harvard and Columbia. Three of his kids went to Penn.

All of them are getting cuts. He refers to all of them as elites. His youngest chose NYU, not an Ivy or his Alma mater.

NYU isn't any less liberal, and still fairly elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll say that most students don't go into a top college because they groomed themselves selectively for it. They were top students, and thought they might as well put their application into a top college.

For the average student, it really doesn't change their trajectory much unless they grew up low income. But for the top students, it is truly the best environment to be and they tend to be industry leaders, full professors, and top researchers in the future. Look at the dominance of Stanford in the tech/VC space or Harvard in biotech and bioengineering. If you have high risk tolerance, this could be the start of a foundational journey backed by limitless resources.

What is your definition of an average student at Harvard or Stanford?

My son graduated from Stanford likely in the bottom 50% with his GPA. Since he graduated 9 years ago he has had so many doors opened simply because of the name. He was not low income and his trajectory has been amazing….even at the bottom of the pack at Stanford…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to depend on what you want to study and your value system.

I’m in medicine and literally does not matter what school. Many colleagues who went to Ivy for undergrad didn’t like their experience. Maybe ivy is good for careers PP posted- consulting, banking, PE, Wall Street)

For my super high stats kid, I still stress fit and vibe and opportunities for their interests.
For my above avg kid, I won’t make them kill themselves in HS. This is life too. Life is not just in the future.

I will admit that I don’t understand the operations of medicine at all.

My kid was admitted to Georgetown hospital and other than the attending in the ER, not one of the four other doctors that saw my kid even attended a US medical school.

They weren’t Caribbean schools…but European or Indian. None I would even remotely recognize.

It's worthwhile to understand some of the artificial limits we put on the training of doctors in the US. This is why we have so many foreign-born physicians. And it's very likely that the Indian and European schools you don't recognize are actually top schools in their respective countries.

This is Heritage Foundation (so not a totally neutral org), but it's got some good background: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/BG3831.pdf (I'm not even remotely conservative, BTW.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll say that most students don't go into a top college because they groomed themselves selectively for it. They were top students, and thought they might as well put their application into a top college.

For the average student, it really doesn't change their trajectory much unless they grew up low income. But for the top students, it is truly the best environment to be and they tend to be industry leaders, full professors, and top researchers in the future. Look at the dominance of Stanford in the tech/VC space or Harvard in biotech and bioengineering. If you have high risk tolerance, this could be the start of a foundational journey backed by limitless resources.

What is your definition of an average student at Harvard or Stanford?

My son graduated from Stanford likely in the bottom 50% with his GPA. Since he graduated 9 years ago he has had so many doors opened simply because of the name. He was not low income and his trajectory has been amazing….even at the bottom of the pack at Stanford…

Statistically, he could've had the same doors open from Texas A&M or Umich. It really is overstated how many doors open for the average, upper middle class student.

[Anonymous]

It depends on what you want out of life, career, and education. I went to an HYPS school. I've had jobs where most of my peers went to elite schools, and I've had others where I was an outlier.

While in school, an advantage was the sheer breadth of classes and EC opportunities. I double-majored, played a club sport, and was active in theater. I think all of these helped build skills and network, but they also just made college fun for me.

Name recognition and recommendations from world-renowned professors almost surely helped my grad school applications...not just my grades etc.

In my career, I've made significant pivots. Once again, I think name recognition made people more likely to take a chance on me. And while I never got a job directly through my alumni network, it has been useful in terms of having conversations and seeking advice.

I'm C-suite now, and only the CEO has a similar educational background (Oxford). But I've had the least straightforward path to this role, and I think my elite school helped me get here without having to focus from Day 1.