Where you go to college matters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

My spouse went to a no their college and got a good job in CS. No one cares where you go to school and after a few years its far more about skill (with a degree as a friend doesn't have a degree and really struggles to get a job even though he's good at what he does).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

OK. What is the percentage of graduating students at those schools actually work for VCs, PEs, startups? 50%? Or is it more like less than 1%? It is still like winning the lottery.

From Stanford? It's very high if you include start-ups...probably close to 50% if you include all those groups.

[Anonymous]

Matters for what?

[Anonymous]

It’s dated now (2015) but there’s a whole book on this subject and it’s an interesting read (not linking lest I be accused of spamming but it’s called Pedigree).

Of course there are many ways to have a successful and meaningful career regardless of where you go to college. But certain professions really do rely on on-campus recruiting and only conduct large-scale OCI at a few, very “elite” universities.

The cruelest part is that those interviews still favor the already-wealthy students who are coached by family members or fraternity brothers on how to ace the interviews. Plus, the first gen students may lack the polish or social graces of the upper class and aren’t perceived as a good “fit.”

It was a rough and somewhat depressing read but I appreciated learning the harsh realities ahead of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

You are shooting the messenger. I was hoping the chart would support the opposite...but it didn't. That's all.

That said your a) above is not really true. There is published research that both support and refute your assertion (the caveat being that even Dale & Krueger says you have to attend a decent college...their research was on a kid accepted to Yale that attended Penn State...Penn State is still a top 100 college). There was more recent research that said that kids admitted off the waitlist to elite schools do better than the kids that did not get off the waitlist.

As you might imagine, it is hard to prove definitively that Kid A would have done equally well regardless of their college because it is not like you can follow a parallel universe for that kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

You are shooting the messenger. I was hoping the chart would support the opposite...but it didn't. That's all.

That said your a) above is not really true. There is published research that both support and refute your assertion (the caveat being that even Dale & Krueger says you have to attend a decent college...their research was on a kid accepted to Yale that attended Penn State...Penn State is still a top 100 college). There was more recent research that said that kids admitted off the waitlist to elite schools do better than the kids that did not get off the + grads than would be expectewaitlist.

As you might imagine, it is hard to prove definitively that Kid A would have done equally well regardless of their college because it is not like you can follow a parallel universe for that kid.

You have misunderstood the more recent research, assuming you're referring to Chetty's study at Harvard. Chetty states that their study AGREES with Dale and Krueger that the average incomes for the two groups were the same, but that more elite college grads were in the top 1%. So if they average the same but there are more elite grads in the top 1%, then there are more non-elite grads somewhere very close behind that. This is most likely attributable to Ivy+ students being the types who value careers with obscene salaries, not to anything that happened at the college. If the study is correct and it matters to you that you make $400k+ vs. say $350k, then MAYBE it makes a difference where you go.

Also, Chetty's study compared those who were accepted at Ivy+ colleges with those who were not (apples vs. oranges), while Dale and Kruger studied those who were accepted and chose to attend Ivy+ vs. those who were accepted and chose to go elsewhere (apples vs. apples). This is an important difference!

And when Chetty looks at who works at elite firms, they define elite as one that hires more Ivy+ grads than would be expected, then makes a big deal out of more Ivy+ grads being hired. This seems bizarre to me.

Oh, and (so far anyway) Dale and Kruger's study has been peer-reviewed and found worthy of publication twice, while (so far as I know) Chetty has not yet been published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

You are shooting the messenger. I was hoping the chart would support the opposite...but it didn't. That's all.

That said your a) above is not really true. There is published research that both support and refute your assertion (the caveat being that even Dale & Krueger says you have to attend a decent college...their research was on a kid accepted to Yale that attended Penn State...Penn State is still a top 100 college). There was more recent research that said that kids admitted off the waitlist to elite schools do better than the kids that did not get off the + grads than would be expectewaitlist.

As you might imagine, it is hard to prove definitively that Kid A would have done equally well regardless of their college because it is not like you can follow a parallel universe for that kid.

You have misunderstood the more recent research, assuming you're referring to Chetty's study at Harvard. Chetty states that their study AGREES with Dale and Krueger that the average incomes for the two groups were the same, but that more elite college grads were in the top 1%. So if they average the same but there are more elite grads in the top 1%, then there are more non-elite grads somewhere very close behind that. This is most likely attributable to Ivy+ students being the types who value careers with obscene salaries, not to anything that happened at the college. If the study is correct and it matters to you that you make $400k+ vs. say $350k, then MAYBE it makes a difference where you go.

Also, Chetty's study compared those who were accepted at Ivy+ colleges with those who were not (apples vs. oranges), while Dale and Kruger studied those who were accepted and chose to attend Ivy+ vs. those who were accepted and chose to go elsewhere (apples vs. apples). This is an important difference!

And when Chetty looks at who works at elite firms, they define elite as one that hires more Ivy+ grads than would be expected, then makes a big deal out of more Ivy+ grads being hired. This seems bizarre to me.

Oh, and (so far anyway) Dale and Kruger's study has been peer-reviewed and found worthy of publication twice, while (so far as I know) Chetty has not yet been published.

Unless I am missing something, Dale & Kruger only looks at the kid who was accepted to Yale but chose Penn State...however, it does not analyze the outcomes of the average kid at Penn State vs. the average kid at Yale (which seems more applicable to the general population)...or does it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opportunities are very everywhere for college students regardless of where you attend. My DS was a CS major at a third tier university but he always went to technology conferences and established professional network connections there. He got rejected so many times that he lost count but there is a FinTech startup that took a chance on him and hired him after he graduated in 2014. The company was acquired by a bigger FinTech player in 2018 and my DS got his options fully vested worth 25M at the age of twenty six. It is what you make of it.

On the one hand I love hearing these stories...but on the other hand you are saying that your kid actually had a very hard time getting a job coming out of a 3rd tier college and got very lucky (luck is absolutely a part of life) that the "one" company that was willing to hire him also had a successful exit.

You do realize that your same kid coming out of say Stanford would have had 100 start-ups vying for his services (plus countless large tech, VC firms, etc.).

Stanford grads never get rejected? What a nice claim that must be to make in visits to high schools!

Not my fault if you can't understand the point.

Would just appreciate if folks would stop posting links to things like the Fortune 500 CEOs or giving a unicorn story (that for the most part says going to a 3rd Tier college was actually not great), both of which actually support (not refute) the OP's statement.

Wish someone would post that my kid attended a school ranked #300 and there were multiple Fortune 500 companies recruiting on-campus and 99% of the grads are employed in high-paying/satisfying careers. That's what we want to see as examples.

How does the list of CEOs support OP's statement? Because top colleges are overrepresented based on their population vs. that of other colleges? Those colleges are more highly represented because their students are almost all brilliant, super ambitious, hard-working, etc., and many are already well-connected before they even get to college (through their parents). It's not because those students attended elite colleges that they're successful, it's because they continue to be in college and adulthood what they already were in high school.

Regardless of why it supports OP's statement...it still supports it. PP gave the link to Fortune 500 CEOs saying "look the University of Iowa has as many as Yale". Somebody clicking the link would then naturally assume that the concentration of CEOs would not be massively clustered in the top schools...but in fact they would see the opposite.

If people make false assumptions, that's not the same as support for the original statement.

Oh, and it's not 'massively clustered there'. It leans that way.

40% come from 13 schools…out of 3,000 colleges. That seems massively clustered to me.

What?!! Where the heck are you pulling that falsehood from?

From the chart that PP posted the link. Supposedly has Fortune 500 CEOs by school. Just added up the numbers.

Chart was supposed to show (I gather) that it doesn’t matter where you go to school to become a Fortune 500 CEO…but data would show otherwise.

a) Those students achieved their success because of who they were before they even entered college, not because of the college they attended. This has been shown through published research and through many other sources of data.

b) You're referring to the chart that show the numbers for combined undergrad/grad school degrees, so the elite colleges have had TWO chances to get first crack at the most capable, ambitious students. Of course they have higher numbers.

You are shooting the messenger. I was hoping the chart would support the opposite...but it didn't. That's all.

That said your a) above is not really true. There is published research that both support and refute your assertion (the caveat being that even Dale & Krueger says you have to attend a decent college...their research was on a kid accepted to Yale that attended Penn State...Penn State is still a top 100 college). There was more recent research that said that kids admitted off the waitlist to elite schools do better than the kids that did not get off the + grads than would be expectewaitlist.

As you might imagine, it is hard to prove definitively that Kid A would have done equally well regardless of their college because it is not like you can follow a parallel universe for that kid.

You have misunderstood the more recent research, assuming you're referring to Chetty's study at Harvard. Chetty states that their study AGREES with Dale and Krueger that the average incomes for the two groups were the same, but that more elite college grads were in the top 1%. So if they average the same but there are more elite grads in the top 1%, then there are more non-elite grads somewhere very close behind that. This is most likely attributable to Ivy+ students being the types who value careers with obscene salaries, not to anything that happened at the college. If the study is correct and it matters to you that you make $400k+ vs. say $350k, then MAYBE it makes a difference where you go.

Also, Chetty's study compared those who were accepted at Ivy+ colleges with those who were not (apples vs. oranges), while Dale and Kruger studied those who were accepted and chose to attend Ivy+ vs. those who were accepted and chose to go elsewhere (apples vs. apples). This is an important difference!

And when Chetty looks at who works at elite firms, they define elite as one that hires more Ivy+ grads than would be expected, then makes a big deal out of more Ivy+ grads being hired. This seems bizarre to me.

Oh, and (so far anyway) Dale and Kruger's study has been peer-reviewed and found worthy of publication twice, while (so far as I know) Chetty has not yet been published.

Unless I am missing something, Dale & Kruger only looks at the kid who was accepted to Yale but chose Penn State...however, it does not analyze the outcomes of the average kid at Penn State vs. the average kid at Yale (which seems more applicable to the general population)...or does it?

ALL of the kids in the study were accepted at an elite college. Some chose to attend it, others chose less selective colleges. They looked at average salaries of each group 10 years out of college and 20 years out of college. They were found to be equal, except for slight differences for first-gen students, blacks and Latinos (not enough to worry about, IMHO).

It's a brilliant way to understand as well as we can something that is impossible to study in real life. They're all equally capable, desirable students, but just had different ideas about what was a good match for them in a college.

[Anonymous]

As a graduate of an elite college I know plenty of elite college alums who are doing OK but not amazing. And I also know plenty of non elite grads who are doing amazing. What am I to infer from this?

That 99% of this thread is ridiculous and wishful thinking.