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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have the means to pay for the IVY with out debt it will always be worth it.

Say you go to medical school and you are Harvard, Yale, etc trained. And you decide to make a career move or say you work for the government and opt to go back in to private practice. The Harvard trained doctor is always going to be given a leg up vs. the doctor from another school.

If you’re smart enough to be educated at an IVY you stand above the others. Even if only on paper. It opens doors.

It provides the ability to meet and marry a spouse who will be at an earning level well above others.

Membership has its benefits.

I

"Smart enough" isn't what gets people into Ivy league schools though. Plenty of people don't apply or don't get in who have the same level of intelligence, even the same stats.

Correct it is more than intelligence alone, it is also disciplined, ambitious, and highly organized that gets one into this level. Some of those that have these qualities do not get in or do not apply. Some get in with huge hooks that do not possess those qualities.
However, it remains true that the highest concentration of smart, driven students are at ivies/mit/stanford and a few other schools.
The peers are the main reason why students (and parents) are vying to get in to elites. It is why the major of those who got to attend want our kids to go to similar schools: we experienced it and know the value of that competitive and intelligent mix.

This is overwhelmingly not the main reason.

Speak for yourself, it was a major reason for both me and my kids.

“Speak for yourself, this was the reason for me” okay so you are speaking for yourself then.

Why pick a fight? I don't think we're alone here. I'm in agreement with the PP who said peer group was a big factor. You can disagree but it's not like this is settled gospel.

Because “big factor” and “the main reason” are different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's remarkable how people draw strong inferences from anecdotes. I see doctors doing this too, in matters of life and death. "I had one patient who..." Personal knowledge skews our conclusions.

So yeah you know this one kid from Skidmore who's a CEO, but come on people, do you really think going to a worse school doesn't reduce your odds of success? Why wouldn't you try to do the best you could at every step of the way?

It's a bit like arguing with vaccine skeptics. Vaccines are a public health necessity. But the people you're arguing with are, almost definitionally, not geniuses. You have to make the case, but you need to rely on repetition and appeals to emotion, not reason.

No, your college does not reduce your odds of success.

Could you prove PP’s point any harder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is point of living a life if we all end up in graves?

That in fact is the point of life. Death.

[Anonymous]

Read this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22675976-where-you-go-is-not-who-you-ll-be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of the time do you spend driving above 75?

The point of superior acceleration isn't to drive above 75.

If you're driving at congested suburban speeds, precise acceleration characteristics are unimportant. For example, Rockville Pike, during the hours that Mercedes driving DCUM readers are likely to be driving.

It matters if you're doing a stupid left-hand merge onto the Beltway in NoVa. There are better and worse cars for that, but a Subaru Impreza is sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have the means to pay for the IVY with out debt it will always be worth it.

Say you go to medical school and you are Harvard, Yale, etc trained. And you decide to make a career move or say you work for the government and opt to go back in to private practice. The Harvard trained doctor is always going to be given a leg up vs. the doctor from another school.

If you’re smart enough to be educated at an IVY you stand above the others. Even if only on paper. It opens doors.

It provides the ability to meet and marry a spouse who will be at an earning level well above others.

Membership has its benefits.

"Smart enough" isn't what gets people into Ivy league schools though. Plenty of people don't apply or don't get in who have the same level of intelligence, even the same stats.

Correct it is more than intelligence alone, it is also disciplined, ambitious, and highly organized that gets one into this level. Some of those that have these qualities do not get in or do not apply. Some get in with huge hooks that do not possess those qualities.
However, it remains true that the highest concentration of smart, driven students are at ivies/mit/stanford and a few other schools.
The peers are the main reason why students (and parents) are vying to get in to elites. It is why the major of those who got to attend want our kids to go to similar schools: we experienced it and know the value of that competitive and intelligent mix.

This is overwhelmingly not the main reason.

DP. It was our main reason. We looked at SAT averages (first was precovid) and ranked them in tiers. About 12 schools all had 1500ish or higher as the median and we wanted a school where they would have the majority of peers at a similar level as DS 1510 one try. The next much bigger group of schools we considered had 1500ish as the 75th percentile. That was as low as we were comfortable with. Sure SAT is not everything but it is the only standardized way to compare peers across schools. For some students, being in a place where one is likely top10% will help them thrive, for others like DS and like ourselves many years ago, we knew the highest percentage of kids similar to them would push them to be their best. So he went to an ivy, different than the ivy where we met. He loved it. DD had much higher scores and “needed”’the top peers more than him in some ways. Picking for peer group match was also encouraged by the head college dean at the private.

[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?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

[Anonymous]

There is an increasingly prevalent SV attitude that unless you attend an elite school (which includes a school like UIUC) there is no point to college whatsoever.

There is an article about Stanford, MIT, Penn, UCB kids getting a Palantir apprenticeship that also includes humanities academic work taught by professors.

Many plan to skip college altogether…some said they will probably return.

This intersects with AI taking general entry level jobs but creating a huge demand for people with fundamental AI skills.

[Anonymous]

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?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

[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?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

This. Some of these comments read like students posting or very unfamiliar (and idealistic) parents.

[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?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

This post should be made the header of the DCUM college section. It is so, so, so true.

[Anonymous]

I have plenty of neighbors who attended Ivies (they’ve made sure we all know, repeatedly) and yet they are no happier. We live in the same neighborhood, drive the same cars.

They’re smart, of course. They had white collar parents. DH and I did not and had to do things on our own. We ended up in similar places. Decent educations but definitely not Ivies. Who cares? Make your own way and don’t obsess about all this other crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

This post should be made the header of the DCUM college section. It is so, so, so true.

It’s a size thing. You have 4k-6k students at an Ivy, less at a top SLAC. It’s elite because so few can attend.

Some of our congressman and senators don’t even have college degrees these days. I’m not sure that is a great thing. I mean Boebert dropped out of HS and only has her GED.

[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?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

I’m not idealistic. I believe there is a difference. Maybe it’s small though. I see it in my prof and personal life (T10) compared to my siblings (not). I now see it in my Ivy kids’ ambitions/friends/lifestyle compared even to their own high school friends (same private HS) who went the flagship route. I think the demographic where a top school is most impactful is the very poor (FG/LI) or weirdly very high income/UHNW. We now fall into latter. My kids have doors opened by their Ivy that even our professional contacts don’t open (at least not as easily).

But maybe not true for everyone. We may be outliers. Live your life. Be happy. This is all minor and at the margins.

[Anonymous]

Agree 1000% with the past few posts. I live in DC and teach in DCPS. My own kids attended DCPS and a "Big3" private.

DCPS kids who go on to Ivies are always a mix of FGLI kids and upper middle class children (the children of AU Park attorneys, etc). Attending an Ivy can be life changing for the FGLI ones because with some certainty it will secure them a place in the trajectory towards being solidly middle to upper middle class (with a certainty that attending, say JMU would not). However it rarely if never vaults the upper middle class, "AU Park" kid to the upper class. I have watched this for YEARS. The DCPS kids who are the children the upper middle class working professionals who head off to Harvard end up getting random jobs just like their peers who go to Wisconsin or Michigan. They aren't working at Goldman Sachs or Google. They aren't getting a giant bump up in life.

In contrast it's been fascinating to watch the career trajectories of the Washington wealthy who attended the private school my kids attended. It really doesn't matter where they go to college: Colgate, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Wisconsin and yes Bucknell. They all end up in great jobs. SO much of life is connections and some weird expectation of success that growing up surrounded by extreme success teaches kids to expect.