HYPSM vs lower elite schools for quality /opportunities
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Hmmm...Let's break it down by future goals.
If they're going pre-med, they could go to a state flagship and take the same classes and have the same chances of getting into a top tier medical school. Law school is a little more biased toward elite undergrads, but not by a lot. Admission to both are driven by grades and test scores. If they are going to grad school, it will be their faculty mentors/advisors/recommenders that get them in and funded. Where do you think the faculty at the "lesser Ivies" and top SLACs got their PhDs? HYPS are generally reluctant to hire their own PhDs until they've proven themselves elsewhere. So there is no lack of access or influence of "lesser Ivy" faculty to get their students into the top ranked grad programs. If they are headed to finance (two-year analysts on the Street, hedge funds, or private equity, not retail stockbrokers), there is almost no difference in recruiting between the schools. If they're quants, then a physics major from Illinois is as competitive as one from Caltech. M&A folks will prefer fellow athletes and frat bros. If they are smart and don't know what to do and interview for strategy/management consulting, McKinsey, Bain, and BCG recruit equally across the elites and have greatly increased hiring from state flagships. At the second tier firms (PwC, Accenture, Deloitte, etc), the large majority of hires will be from state schools rather than the elites, but they soak up those Ivy grads that don't get hired by the first three firms. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
No. Students from more highly ranked schools do better on average, but that's because it's tougher to get in. When you adjust for admission, schools don't matter:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/who-needs-harvard/ "Krueger and Dale studied what happened to students who were accepted at an Ivy or a similar institution, but chose instead to attend a less sexy, “moderately selective” school. It turned out that such students had, on average, the same income twenty years later as graduates of the elite colleges. Krueger and Dale found that for students bright enough to win admission to a top school, later income “varied little, no matter which type of college they attended.” In other words, the student, not the school, was responsible for the success." I'd guess that wouldn't stand up to huge differences in qualify - e.g., CalTech vs. Cal State Fullerton - but you're asking about schools that are only slightly different. |
Anonymous
Hmm. I'd reverse the SLAC and state flagship recommendations. If they're going pre-med they'd probably be better able to maximize GPA at a SLAC rather than a state flagship. If they have HYPSM type credentials (and a sustained and demonstrable interest in medicine), they might also be competitive for BA/MD programs at Northwestern, Brown or GWU. State flagships can be great for kids heading toward academia. Lots of research opportunities. Chance to stand out from the crowd who generally aren't interested in becoming professors. On some level, we're both right in that you can get there (PhD or MD) from anywhere. |
Anonymous
|
The research on outcomes shows that you will get the best opportunities by going to the school where you will be in the top tier of students rather than a higher ranked school where just you just managed to get in. Regardless of school, it's the top tier of students who get the most opportunities, most chances to work on research, have relationships with faculty, etc.
So, doesn't really matter if HYP has amazing opportunites, if you end up ranked in the bottom 10% of the class. You'd be better off at a slightly less selective school where you can be a star. |
Anonymous
|
The people interested in this question though likely have currently high performing kids. I think we're somewhat mixing apples and oranges by introducing the "star" factor" vs. lowest 10% of class.
So assuming the kids are about equal across the board in terms of ability, then the interesting question is what is the relative focus of each school in this overall elite category. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Lottery is the wrong word. I mean, explain the kids that get into several elites? If it was a lottery they'd only hit 1, not 3 4 5...all of them. I do think there's a lot more strategy involved these days with yield protection giving 50% of the slots to single choice early applicants. |
Anonymous
HYPSM are just filthy rich, to the point there's too many resources for any normal kid to take advantage of (and I assume most don't). End of the day it's just a status badge for most; so families want the most exclusive they can get. All of the elites are top 99.9 percentile colleges. |
Anonymous
|
As others have said, there's a lot of differences between H, Y, P, S, and M. Different experiences. I went to one of them, and had not interest in nor would I want my kid to go to some of the others. But the resources thing is an issue. Even though my school does ask for funds, they have so much money that at the end of the day money is not a huge issue in student life, which is HUGE for some students. We have a multi-million dollar endowment for one of the extracurricular activities, so when they go on international tours, we don't ask the students to pay anything other than a token amount (to force the kids to show some commitment to the activity) and there ain't no bake sales or sleeping in youth hostels. I continue to give money to that activity, because I was appreciative when I was there about how need blind it was.
And yes, we have a very strong alumni network with powerful connections. It does help. And the more intangible thing is that I am never afraid to walk in a room and don't get starstruck. Someone says to me in my day job - "go see the Secretary of X, or General So-and-So" and I don't feel out of place in the room.I don't think I'm BETTER than they are (unlike one of the schools that I wouldn't want my kid to go to) but I'm just not intimidated, because I'm used to the big leagues. |
Anonymous
| You raise good points especially for those in less monetarily comfortable backgrounds. Less applicable for the UMC though in tems of ECs and contacts so IMO those factors don't result in an appreciable difference between HYPSM and other elites. There's also the downside of too much unfettered money for student life. Personally I think its a problem that kids are bragging about how the school will pay for anything they want and have access to paid trips that are one long party. While the mature kids will use those resources wisely and I can appreciate the candy store appeal, I think there is too little thought in the process. Most of these kids will not be moving onto lives where they will have unlimited resources so they could use some life skills IMO. |
Anonymous
I think this thread is helpful. There are many very talented kids every year who are considering not wasting their early card to the HYPSM lottery and instead going for slightly more attainable top schools. However, they have been conditioned to think that HYPSM is the end all. In ultra elite high school circles there is a certain element of snobbery when it comes to HYPSM vs the so-called lower ivies and other top schools. In many cases these kids apply early to HYPSM, get rejected and then they have to deal with the crapshoot of RD at the other elites. In many cases they end up not attending an ivy or top school because they passed on the chance of applying early to an elite ED school as opposed to HYPSM. |
Anonymous
Then their parents don't understand the no. of kids accepted ED,EA, SCEA vs RD. My DC got into every single one of his SCEA (1, obviously) and EA publics. He and his friends did not get into a single one of their RD schools. I firmly believe the admissions offices are cherrypicking in the EA/ED/SCEA applications. |