What’s the point of going to a top school if you end up in the same place as someone who didn’t

[Anonymous]

You don't need to go to a top school to get a top job. But going to a school like MIT would be an amazing experience.

[Anonymous]

It depends on what your options are and how much debt you will have to go into.

That’s all it boils down to people.

Don’t make this more complicated than it needs to be.

[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.

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.

yes, agree with this and have seen the same with regards to very high income kids. A huge part of maximizing an Ivy degree is having the confidence, knowledge and soft skills to know how to use it and these things are generally learned by example by watching parents, family friends, etc. it's fascinating to me as an upper middle class parent whose kids attend(ed) a NYC private. Their peers just have an expectation of success and they know how to get there. It took my husband and 20 years to internalize what some of my kids' 21 year old friends knew from the day the ink was dry on their diplomas.

[Anonymous]

And then the under-achievers inherit generational wealth at midlife and retire at 50.

You are still grinding it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

yes, agree with this and have seen the same with regards to very high income kids. A huge part of maximizing an Ivy degree is having the confidence, knowledge and soft skills to know how to use it and these things are generally learned by example by watching parents, family friends, etc. it's fascinating to me as an upper middle class parent whose kids attend(ed) a NYC private. Their peers just have an expectation of success and they know how to get there. It took my husband and 20 years to internalize what some of my kids' 21 year old friends knew from the day the ink was dry on their diplomas.

+10000
Non-DMV private here.
See this every day.

[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?!

The Indian school is no name to you or your sister, but I bet it is well regarded by people that know Indian colleges (which the Brits would know).

There are thousands of Indian colleges but only like 20 that are better than a correspondence school.

This^. Every country has some great colleges. In Pakistan, students from whole country competes for our top colleges. If you get in, your peer quality is top notch and your college experience is significantly different than rest of the country and opens up opportunities not available to others.

Almost 75% of mine and DH's classmates are thriving in US, EU, UK, AUS, NZ, CA, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc working alongside similarly fortunate colleagues from competitive colleges of their own countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh get real. We all know why it’s important that your kid attend a top college: so you can brag about it. Because you think it reflects on you. That’s what it’s all about. Who are you trying to kid.

That's one of the perks for sure. Your parents, future spouse, children and in-laws get to brag.

[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?!

The Indian school is no name to you or your sister, but I bet it is well regarded by people that know Indian colleges (which the Brits would know).

There are thousands of Indian colleges but only like 20 that are better than a correspondence school.

This^. Every country has some great colleges. In Pakistan, students from whole country competes for our top colleges. If you get in, your peer quality is top notch and your college experience is significantly different than rest of the country and opens up opportunities not available to others.

Almost 75% of mine and DH's classmates are thriving in US, EU, UK, AUS, NZ, CA, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc working alongside similarly fortunate colleagues from competitive colleges of their own countries.

Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on what your options are and how much debt you will have to go into.

That’s all it boils down to people.

Don’t make this more complicated than it needs to be.

Yes but if parents can pay, don't fall for taking a car, wedding or downpayment instead. Those things aren't worth swapping for a desired college experience.

[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?!

The Indian school is no name to you or your sister, but I bet it is well regarded by people that know Indian colleges (which the Brits would know).

There are thousands of Indian colleges but only like 20 that are better than a correspondence school.

This^. Every country has some great colleges. In Pakistan, students from whole country competes for our top colleges. If you get in, your peer quality is top notch and your college experience is significantly different than rest of the country and opens up opportunities not available to others.

Almost 75% of mine and DH's classmates are thriving in US, EU, UK, AUS, NZ, CA, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc working alongside similarly fortunate colleagues from competitive colleges of their own countries.

Who cares?

Ones who were implying that somehow Indian grads aren't worthy of working at same level as Oxford grads, just because they don't know names of these colleges. PP's point is to emphasize the role peer quality plays in a college experience.

[Anonymous]

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?!

I went to two top-tier schools (top 5s for undergrad and law), and the experience was absolutely worth it for me. And yes, I killed myself for years to get on the elite university track and stay on it. But the resources at my schools were unparalleled. There's almost no other place where you can take classes from and interact with Nobel Laureates and Pulitzer Prize-winning historians on a regular basis. I had weekly violin lessons from a concert violinist, giving me access to training that I otherwise would have needed admission to a top conservatory to get. With basically zero competition, I was able to get into the lab of a scientist regarded as one of the leading experts in his branch of science.

Regarding job outcomes: there aren't special jobs that are set aside for graduates of elite universities, but I've seen my cohort have a really outsized impact. I think whether someone ends up in a high-impact job comes down to risk tolerance. If you go for a consulting or biglaw job, that's pretty low risk (there's a defined path to get the job, and a defined ladder to climb at the firm). You're pretty much guaranteed to make a large salary. But you're probably not going to have as big an impact. You might occasionally read in the news about a deal you worked on or a big case. But it'll be infrequent. The kinds of jobs in which you have a bigger impact require you to take a bigger risk and get off the well-defined career ladders. Things like medical research, public policy, starting your own business, etc. For those job, the network is really helpful--but you have to start from a place of loving what you're working on, and not doing it for the money.

[Anonymous]

I have more practical reasons. I worked too hard to be a donut hole family (full pay, but not without some pain). I don't want my kid to marry into student debt. My kid is at Yale where people are rich or they get FA. Very little debt.

My kid might not find a marriage partner at school, but this is their social circle now so it's not out of the question.

[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….

What's crazy is that you think Michigan isn't a selective school that will offer a top student many advantages....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

yes, agree with this and have seen the same with regards to very high income kids. A huge part of maximizing an Ivy degree is having the confidence, knowledge and soft skills to know how to use it and these things are generally learned by example by watching parents, family friends, etc. it's fascinating to me as an upper middle class parent whose kids attend(ed) a NYC private. Their peers just have an expectation of success and they know how to get there. It took my husband and 20 years to internalize what some of my kids' 21 year old friends knew from the day the ink was dry on their diplomas.

This is why there are kids out there who are middling to mediocre students in HS and who go to mediocre colleges who end up extremely successful in life while the valedictorian who grinded his/her way to an Ivy ends up living an unremarkable life (likely still pleasantly nice but not quite the same). It's also why there's a risk in overthinking or expecting too much out of a fancy college experience. Statistically speaking, upper class America is dominated by schools outside the Ivy League, not elite Ivy grads. The latter gets the attention but the former is the clear majority.

By the way, a lot of Wall Street/finance talent comes out of certain sports teams at certain schools and those schools aren't exclusive to the Ivy League.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

yes, agree with this and have seen the same with regards to very high income kids. A huge part of maximizing an Ivy degree is having the confidence, knowledge and soft skills to know how to use it and these things are generally learned by example by watching parents, family friends, etc. it's fascinating to me as an upper middle class parent whose kids attend(ed) a NYC private. Their peers just have an expectation of success and they know how to get there. It took my husband and 20 years to internalize what some of my kids' 21 year old friends knew from the day the ink was dry on their diplomas.

This is why there are kids out there who are middling to mediocre students in HS and who go to mediocre colleges who end up extremely successful in life while the valedictorian who grinded his/her way to an Ivy ends up living an unremarkable life (likely still pleasantly nice but not quite the same). It's also why there's a risk in overthinking or expecting too much out of a fancy college experience. Statistically speaking, upper class America is dominated by schools outside the Ivy League, not elite Ivy grads. The latter gets the attention but the former is the clear majority.

By the way, a lot of Wall Street/finance talent comes out of certain sports teams at certain schools and those schools aren't exclusive to the Ivy League.

Also meant to add that as a graduate of an elite college, I enjoyed every minute of the experience and it can be special and that much more gilded as experiences go, but there's many more factors involved in achieving great success than just a fancy diploma.