Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is very interesting & I'm sure there is some truth to it. Of course it can only speak to averages & general trends, uses income as the primary measure (not everyone's sole or chief concern), and many of us know exceptions. But interesting contribution to the discussion.

Yup, my boss went to Yale. He makes $134,000/year but leads a major organization. Income is not everything.

[Anonymous]

I went to a SLAC that was ranked around 9-10 back then (now in top 5 but still not considered top tier by many). Two kids from my small class of 400 went on to HLS and clerk for supreme court justices. So, take that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, this is the "tier 4" poster from a recent thread about how sports at D2 and D3 schools are a scam.

Funny most of the D3 lax teams are Tier 2 schools. Oh, the irony.

[Anonymous]

Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

[Anonymous]

It does not look like income was adjusted for cost of living.... an income in NY vs an income in TN. They are compared like apples to apples. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

[Anonymous]

bad luck, not back luck

[Anonymous]

I think a loan officer wrote that article. It's contrary to everything I've experienced both for those close to me and those I work with. And it just sets the stage more for the already privileged for whom paying big bucks for big names isn't an issue.

Good thing my kid doesn't want to work on Wall Street!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad.

I am in industry with a PhD. I use my advanced degree. Nobody gives a shit where I went to undergrad. Nobody asks. Plenty of well-paid senior folks here did not go to a "top college".

Of course, once you get hired, nobody even cares where you did your grad degree. "Can you do your job NOW?" is what they care about.

[Anonymous]

[guardian]

Anonymous wrote:Do they control for family of origin wealth? I am from an ivy and don't make much more than colleagues from state schools -- but I was lower middle class from rural town, unlike vast majority of ivy classmates that were either from wealthy families or often urban magnet schools (even if their family was not wealthy, their secondary education far outstripped what my county could offer)

In short, the inability to catch up starts much earlier than college.

+1. And OP, you sound nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

If this isn't code for "I prefer candidates who speak the way I do and have a shared upper class background," I don't know what is.

You like people who are like you. The ones you can joke with about summers at the Cape, and which dining club they chose to join.

G-d help the smart, driven, kid who doesn't share your shibboleths.

I work in engineering. We are not a country club. My "elite" schools include MIT, Caltech, IIT and the best Chinese universities. I have had one PhD student from HYP, and she is an underrepresented minority from a lower middle class family.

My job is to help upwardly mobile kids with the best education. I'm sorry that your stereotypes make you jump to incorrect conclusions. But my job is to get the right answer, objectively.

And as far as my experience, it's with other engineers who ask me about my background. As I said, do what you'd like with this information but if insulting me is what you see to do, that speaks much more about your character and abilities than mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?

Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.

Let me explain it to you this way.

There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?

Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.

Let me explain it to you this way.

There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?

I don't agree that notion is false. The admissions committee may have made some very fine distinctions between the 95 kids who did not get in and the 5 who did, but nonetheless those 5 had some merit that the 95 lacked. They did not just put 100 names in a jar and draw 5.