Selingo WSJ Essay

[Anonymous]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/the-elite-college-myth-268c4371?st=zZtGi8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Excerpt from his new book. His basic point is that career paths are more affected by personal ties, such as what region you come from, than the brand of the school. He claims that Ivy-plus outcomes are no different than highly ranked public universities such as Texas, UCLA and Ohio State (although I wouldn't put Ohio in that list, LOL) for most fields.

The problem, of course, is that in the DMV, desirable career paths are affected by the brand of the school, hence the worrying and lamentations on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/the-elite-college-myth-268c4371?st=zZtGi8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Excerpt from his new book. His basic point is that career paths are more affected by personal ties, such as what region you come from, than the brand of the school. He claims that Ivy-plus outcomes are no different than highly ranked public universities such as Texas, UCLA and Ohio State (although I wouldn't put Ohio in that list, LOL) for most fields.

The problem, of course, is that in the DMV, desirable career paths are affected by the brand of the school, hence the worrying and lamentations on this board.

You think you know more than Selingo?

[Anonymous]

The essay kind of talks out two sides. Says the elite schools don’t matter in the end, but then also says graduates of elite schools are 60% more likely to end up at elite jobs (think he used Goldman as an example) and secure higher salaries out of undergrad.

Also, it shows a chart that says out of a Microsoft pool of entry level employees, 3500 out of around 12,000 come from colleges with 20% or less acceptance rates. It’s the largest group though that leaves 8500 employees coming from less selective schools.

Again, the issue with this is that there are only like 25 colleges (most of which are relatively small) that fit this criteria while there are thousands that fit the other criteria of higher acceptance rates.

My takeaway was that at Microsoft it definitely pays to come from a sub-20% acceptance college.

I also don’t get looking at Fortune 50 companies as a good measure. Outside of tech, you just won’t see many top school grads wanting to work at Exxon or CVS or a good 30 of the F50 companies.

[Anonymous]

These articles focus on career “success” and not money “success”.

The insurance policy is that the graduates have rich friends and/or marry someone rich. How many parents on this board earned their 1% vs married their 1%? I am semi-successful professsionally from a meh-private college; my money comes from my husband’s family, not my career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These articles focus on career “success” and not money “success”.

The insurance policy is that the graduates have rich friends and/or marry someone rich. How many parents on this board earned their 1% vs married their 1%? I am semi-successful professsionally from a meh-private college; my money comes from my husband’s family, not my career.

If the 1% make up a lot of the graduates, these kids are already in the 1%. They don’t need to go to college to make those friends. They already knew them in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The essay kind of talks out two sides. Says the elite schools don’t matter in the end, but then also says graduates of elite schools are 60% more likely to end up at elite jobs (think he used Goldman as an example) and secure higher salaries out of undergrad.

Also, it shows a chart that says out of a Microsoft pool of entry level employees, 3500 out of around 12,000 come from colleges with 20% or less acceptance rates. It’s the largest group though that leaves 8500 employees coming from less selective schools.

Again, the issue with this is that there are only like 25 colleges (most of which are relatively small) that fit this criteria while there are thousands that fit the other criteria of higher acceptance rates.

My takeaway was that at Microsoft it definitely pays to come from a sub-20% acceptance college.

I also don’t get looking at Fortune 50 companies as a good measure. Outside of tech, you just won’t see many top school grads wanting to work at Exxon or CVS or a good 30 of the F50 companies.

that was my take as well. He provides the argument for both sides then says it does in fact matter for certain companies/careers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These articles focus on career “success” and not money “success”.

The insurance policy is that the graduates have rich friends and/or marry someone rich. How many parents on this board earned their 1% vs married their 1%? I am semi-successful professsionally from a meh-private college; my money comes from my husband’s family, not my career.

Both former low-income, heavily aided students who met at an ivy, went to med school at a different but top school, and earn top2%. Most of our adult friends are in medicine or law. About half came from no money and did not marry into significant (top-5%)money. We are younger than the ave college parents, just turned 50, college '97. Our friends are all similar. In fact the smartest two from '97 are a top lawyer and a research MD-phD.about 40% of my ivy was on need-based aid when I attended now it is 55%. parents on dcum who went to college in the 80s have a very different understanding of college compared to people from the late 90s. The legacy friends in my adult involved alum group are predominantly new to the top incomes, and were not legacies ourselves. My ivy absolutely changed my trajectory and it continues to do the same for a larger and larger portion of the undergraduate population.

[Anonymous]

^edit to add the smartest two were heavily aided and went to top law top md-phd

[Anonymous]

Does his research control for intelligence of students? The research I’ve seen says that if you control for intelligence based on standardized test scores outcomes are even no matter where you go to school, unless you are poor. Then the name brand can be uniquely helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does his research control for intelligence of students? The research I’ve seen says that if you control for intelligence based on standardized test scores outcomes are even no matter where you go to school, unless you are poor. Then the name brand can be uniquely helpful.

+1. It’s not about what proportion of schools produce this or that. It’s about whether there is any causal effect from the school itself versus other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The essay kind of talks out two sides. Says the elite schools don’t matter in the end, but then also says graduates of elite schools are 60% more likely to end up at elite jobs (think he used Goldman as an example) and secure higher salaries out of undergrad.

Also, it shows a chart that says out of a Microsoft pool of entry level employees, 3500 out of around 12,000 come from colleges with 20% or less acceptance rates. It’s the largest group though that leaves 8500 employees coming from less selective schools.

Again, the issue with this is that there are only like 25 colleges (most of which are relatively small) that fit this criteria while there are thousands that fit the other criteria of higher acceptance rates.

My takeaway was that at Microsoft it definitely pays to come from a sub-20% acceptance college.

I also don’t get looking at Fortune 50 companies as a good measure. Outside of tech, you just won’t see many top school grads wanting to work at Exxon or CVS or a good 30 of the F50 companies.

You do understand that 60% more likely doesn’t mean 60% chance, right. He is saying that is most kids have a 10% chance (probably high but for ease of explaining) of earning in the top 1%, grads from ivy ivy a 16% chance…yes better but still unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These articles focus on career “success” and not money “success”.

The insurance policy is that the graduates have rich friends and/or marry someone rich. How many parents on this board earned their 1% vs married their 1%? I am semi-successful professsionally from a meh-private college; my money comes from my husband’s family, not my career.

Both former low-income, heavily aided students who met at an ivy, went to med school at a different but top school, and earn top2%. Most of our adult friends are in medicine or law. About half came from no money and did not marry into significant (top-5%)money. We are younger than the ave college parents, just turned 50, college '97. Our friends are all similar. In fact the smartest two from '97 are a top lawyer and a research MD-phD.about 40% of my ivy was on need-based aid when I attended now it is 55%. parents on dcum who went to college in the 80s have a very different understanding of college compared to people from the late 90s. The legacy friends in my adult involved alum group are predominantly new to the top incomes, and were not legacies ourselves. My ivy absolutely changed my trajectory and it continues to do the same for a larger and larger portion of the undergraduate population.

This is a powerful defense of Ivies as institutions but it is hardly an argument that full-pay families not already in the top 1-2% should shell out an unlimited amount of money for these schools. The top 10-20% of American households is a pretty comfortable place to be, especially if you’re not hellbent on living in the center of an expensive city and you don’t saddle your kid with massive unnecessary debt. Obviously if you have functionally unlimited money, it doesn’t matter how you spend it. Good for Ivies, for redirecting a lot of that excess wealth to poor kids. But there’s absolutely no reason families in the 85th-95th percentile should voluntarily subject themselves to that tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These articles focus on career “success” and not money “success”.

The insurance policy is that the graduates have rich friends and/or marry someone rich. How many parents on this board earned their 1% vs married their 1%? I am semi-successful professsionally from a meh-private college; my money comes from my husband’s family, not my career.

Both former low-income, heavily aided students who met at an ivy, went to med school at a different but top school, and earn top2%. Most of our adult friends are in medicine or law. About half came from no money and did not marry into significant (top-5%)money. We are younger than the ave college parents, just turned 50, college '97. Our friends are all similar. In fact the smartest two from '97 are a top lawyer and a research MD-phD.about 40% of my ivy was on need-based aid when I attended now it is 55%. parents on dcum who went to college in the 80s have a very different understanding of college compared to people from the late 90s. The legacy friends in my adult involved alum group are predominantly new to the top incomes, and were not legacies ourselves. My ivy absolutely changed my trajectory and it continues to do the same for a larger and larger portion of the undergraduate population.

I know many recent Ivy grads from under privileged backgrounds because of my work with a scholarship program and they are not vaulting into elite jobs or the 2%. They are generally getting stable professional jobs (most of them-not all) and yes, this is an uptick from their family of origin but the elite jobs after Ivy gradation are going to that kids who know how to network and know how to navigate this world, and in many cases have direct connections. It takes a few generations to get there.

[Anonymous]

I went to an Ivy and most of my close friends from college are psychologists, artists, or scientists. I think the quality of education affected the quality of our thinking, but the name brand of the university has had no effect on our careers (maybe for the scientists who are in academia but not for the rest of us). For lawyers maybe it’s a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These articles focus on career “success” and not money “success”.

The insurance policy is that the graduates have rich friends and/or marry someone rich. How many parents on this board earned their 1% vs married their 1%? I am semi-successful professsionally from a meh-private college; my money comes from my husband’s family, not my career.

If the 1% make up a lot of the graduates, these kids are already in the 1%. They don’t need to go to college to make those friends. They already knew them in HS.

They no longer do, and the schools with the most are no longer the Ivy+.
The top 1% were about 17-18% of undergrads at ivy+ in an article using 2013 data! It was published in 2017 and again in 2021 but used data from the graduating class of 2013. The Ivys faced a lot of negative press from it and made changes, especially since 2020.

WashU, Colby, W&L, SMU had higher portions of undergrads in the top1% than ivys at the time: upwards of 24%. WashU is now much lower because they faced backlash in the round after the ivy backlash for the same thing. Pell grand, FGLI, %on need based aid, need-blind admissions are all pushed and broadcast loudly as goals by the top schools: WashU is right on the cusp of the T15ish group and has made, IMO, positive changes to prioritize socioeconomic equity in admissions.
Since the 2013 data, top colleges especially ivys have redoubled efforts to admit more pell grant kids, expand aid and promote equity. The ivys are MUCH LESS 1% (and less top 5%) heavy than they were 10 years ago yet still proportionally lead to higher likelihood of garnering jobs at MMB, top tech, or acceptance to top law, top med. Schools with the highest proportion of the 1% are not ivys and do not have results at the ivy level.

Hence outcomes these days are less about the proportion of 1% and more a factor of certain companies targeting top schools for efficiency purposes as well as the students of these top schools skew heavily toward the highest intelligence based on proportions: it is no surprise they have the highest LSAT and MCAT distributions. However a very top kid from a T50ish who had the stats and got admission or at least WL to a T15 can likely end up in a similar place, minus maybe a handful or two of companies that target name brands.