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

[Anonymous]

We all end up in the same place at the end -the grave. But we take different journeys to get there. Some have more fun, some make the world a better place, some make it a worse one.

[Anonymous]

What’s the point of doing anything since we all die at the end anyways?

[Anonymous]

Shoot, the person above me literally said the same thing. Hah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're mixing two different things. I'm going to use random numbers as an example.

The odds of being upper class after attending an Ivy = 30% multiplied by 10000 grads per year = 3000 upper class Ivy League grads
The odds of being upper class after attending a non-Ivy = 5% multiplied by 2 million grads per year = 100000 upper class non-Ivy League grads

This explains why your chances of being upper class are much better by attending an Ivy, even though there are way more upper class folks who didn't attend one.

[Anonymous]

I feel like this is very important when your kids are going through the process. I know where most of my friends' college age kids are going because that's what they talk about (and rightly so). I'm not always sure where my friends went to college, and I definitely don't know their GPA, etc...because at some point it doesn't matter that much. So really it's about the experience at the time and the friends they make.

[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….

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

Michigan is not selective at the level that offers the advantages outlined by PP and others. Ivies and a few other privates offer that level of advantage to undergrads.

[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.

This!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're mixing two different things. I'm going to use random numbers as an example.

The odds of being upper class after attending an Ivy = 30% multiplied by 10000 grads per year = 3000 upper class Ivy League grads
The odds of being upper class after attending a non-Ivy = 5% multiplied by 2 million grads per year = 100000 upper class non-Ivy League grads

This explains why your chances of being upper class are much better by attending an Ivy, even though there are way more upper class folks who didn't attend one.

What you're ignoring is this question:

Do the elite colleges admit kids who are already destined for the American upper classes?

Hmm? Ivy grads are already heavily disproportionately from the upper classes so it's not surprising they have upper classes outcomes. Just like their siblings or friends or socioeconomic peers who didn't go to the Ivies.

There's anecdotal evidence everywhere and people can extrapolate anything they want from them and while anecdotes are great they are also limited. There are students who lucked into an Ivy and suddenly found themselves surrounded by peers who nudged them into the right direction and helped them realize if they went to law school or did this or that they could literally walk into a solid six figure income for life, a game changer for them. And it happened. To many. But many others didn't need that knowledge because they grew up in a world where professional success is ingrained from early on thanks to parents and neighborhoods and friends. They didn't need the Ivy to figure this out.

[Anonymous]

These generalized ‘ivies open doors’ is used endlessly on here. But can anyone give a specific example? I never see one, and am doubtful the phrase is correct. I look at my kids friends who went ivy or top 20, and am not seeing any excelling more then the other kids they knew. And as a reference my kids went to a top dmv public high school with a lot of top private kid crossover.

[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….

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

Yeah this whole discussion has been bizarre. Pretty sure Ross churns out grads that go into elite, highly paid jobs in selective industries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're mixing two different things. I'm going to use random numbers as an example.

The odds of being upper class after attending an Ivy = 30% multiplied by 10000 grads per year = 3000 upper class Ivy League grads
The odds of being upper class after attending a non-Ivy = 5% multiplied by 2 million grads per year = 100000 upper class non-Ivy League grads

This explains why your chances of being upper class are much better by attending an Ivy, even though there are way more upper class folks who didn't attend one.

What you're ignoring is this question:

Do the elite colleges admit kids who are already destined for the American upper classes?

Hmm? Ivy grads are already heavily disproportionately from the upper classes so it's not surprising they have upper classes outcomes. Just like their siblings or friends or socioeconomic peers who didn't go to the Ivies.

There's anecdotal evidence everywhere and people can extrapolate anything they want from them and while anecdotes are great they are also limited. There are students who lucked into an Ivy and suddenly found themselves surrounded by peers who nudged them into the right direction and helped them realize if they went to law school or did this or that they could literally walk into a solid six figure income for life, a game changer for them. And it happened. To many. But many others didn't need that knowledge because they grew up in a world where professional success is ingrained from early on thanks to parents and neighborhoods and friends. They didn't need the Ivy to figure this out.

It's not about needing to "figure something out." It's about the number of doors to success that are available. For every door that's open to a non-Ivy grad if and only if they have a 3.8+ GPA, these same doors plus more are usually open to Ivy grads regardless of their GPA.

[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.

25% of all F500 CEOs attended an Ivy plus school (so like 12 schools)...50% attended a top 50 school with that heavily weighted towards the top 30. The other 50% went to one of 250 schools basically. So, a rational person would say the odds are better to become a F500 CEO at a highly ranked school.

80% of all VC partners attended a top 10 school (with Harvard and Stanford out representing). P/E funds and hedge funds are also heavily, heavily skewed towards Ivy plus colleges. Partners at these firms are worth anywhere from 10x to 1000x what a non-founder F500 CEO is worth.

Of course, tech is the one area where you have Ivy plus grads/dropouts wanting to work for F500 tech or found companies.

[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.

25% of all F500 CEOs attended an Ivy plus school (so like 12 schools)...50% attended a top 50 school with that heavily weighted towards the top 30. The other 50% went to one of 250 schools basically. So, a rational person would say the odds are better to become a F500 CEO at a highly ranked school.

80% of all VC partners attended a top 10 school (with Harvard and Stanford out representing). P/E funds and hedge funds are also heavily, heavily skewed towards Ivy plus colleges. Partners at these firms are worth anywhere from 10x to 1000x what a non-founder F500 CEO is worth.

Of course, tech is the one area where you have Ivy plus grads/dropouts wanting to work for F500 tech or found companies.

And how many people are we talking about? Add them up and you get what? And how do you know these people still wouldn't have gotten to where they are had they not gone to an Ivy? I'll also point out that you are using some questionable metrics. There are several thousand venture capital firms. Do you know for sure that 80% of all their partners went to a top 10 school? And you haven't cited any credible sources so we have to take your word for it. Last but not least you are looking at an incredibly narrow subset of outcomes. Your metrics excludes the vast majority of Ivy grads. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee (far from it) that you'll end up in one of those spots. And it's not a system that rigs itself to exclude Ivy grads but is one that rewards merit and aptitude. I won't deny you get a higher concentration at elite colleges but having that aptitude is what matters the most. But even using your metrics 75% of F500 CEOs *did not* go to an Ivy plus school.

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to found Microsoft. He didn't become successful because of Harvard. It was his father's connections as a prominent Seattle figure who got him launched.

I've met many people who went to elite colleges. I went to an elite college. I know the typical outcome. I don't focus on the top 1-5% outcome because I also know there's more at play than just a Harvard degree that gets you the top outcome. And let me point out that for every top percentage outcome you have an equal number of grads who failed to go anywhere, telling you admissions is not a guarantee to joining the table of life, whatever it is. I also object to certain posters claiming that "same doors plus more are usually open to Ivy grads regardless of their GPA." "Elite" entities recruiting out of Ivy schools absolutely have their own thresholds.
d

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've met many people who went to elite colleges. I went to an elite college. I know the typical outcome. I don't focus on the top 1-5% outcome because I also know there's more at play than just a Harvard degree that gets you the top outcome. And let me point out that for every top percentage outcome you have an equal number of grads who failed to go anywhere, telling you admissions is not a guarantee to joining the table of life, whatever it is. I also object to certain posters claiming that "same doors plus more are usually open to Ivy grads regardless of their GPA." "Elite" entities recruiting out of Ivy schools absolutely have their own thresholds.

Fine, no need focus on top 1-5% outcomes. What's the median outcome for an Ivy League graduate vs. the median outcome for a non-top 50/75/100 school's graduate?

[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.

25% of all F500 CEOs attended an Ivy plus school (so like 12 schools)...50% attended a top 50 school with that heavily weighted towards the top 30. The other 50% went to one of 250 schools basically. So, a rational person would say the odds are better to become a F500 CEO at a highly ranked school.

80% of all VC partners attended a top 10 school (with Harvard and Stanford out representing). P/E funds and hedge funds are also heavily, heavily skewed towards Ivy plus colleges. Partners at these firms are worth anywhere from 10x to 1000x what a non-founder F500 CEO is worth.

Of course, tech is the one area where you have Ivy plus grads/dropouts wanting to work for F500 tech or found companies.

And how many people are we talking about? Add them up and you get what? And how do you know these people still wouldn't have gotten to where they are had they not gone to an Ivy? I'll also point out that you are using some questionable metrics. There are several thousand venture capital firms. Do you know for sure that 80% of all their partners went to a top 10 school? And you haven't cited any credible sources so we have to take your word for it. Last but not least you are looking at an incredibly narrow subset of outcomes. Your metrics excludes the vast majority of Ivy grads. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee (far from it) that you'll end up in one of those spots. And it's not a system that rigs itself to exclude Ivy grads but is one that rewards merit and aptitude. I won't deny you get a higher concentration at elite colleges but having that aptitude is what matters the most. But even using your metrics 75% of F500 CEOs *did not* go to an Ivy plus school.

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to found Microsoft. He didn't become successful because of Harvard. It was his father's connections as a prominent Seattle figure who got him launched.

I've met many people who went to elite colleges. I went to an elite college. I know the typical outcome. I don't focus on the top 1-5% outcome because I also know there's more at play than just a Harvard degree that gets you the top outcome. And let me point out that for every top percentage outcome you have an equal number of grads who failed to go anywhere, telling you admissions is not a guarantee to joining the table of life, whatever it is. I also object to certain posters claiming that "same doors plus more are usually open to Ivy grads regardless of their GPA." "Elite" entities recruiting out of Ivy schools absolutely have their own thresholds.
d

Hey...the PP decided to use idiotic statistics of F500 companies to say it doesn't matter what college you attend. If you are going to use idiotic statistics, then you have to accept those same idiotic statistics don't prove the point you are trying to make.

Once more, if someone tells you that you 25% of all F500 CEOs by attended an Ivy+ college vs. the 75% that come from every other college...a reasonable person would say sign me up for an Ivy+, right?

"A significant portion of venture capital partners attended top universities, with a notable concentration at Harvard and Stanford. Studies indicate that around 40% of venture capitalists have attended either Harvard or Stanford, according to Axios. This suggests a strong connection between elite education and entry into the venture capital industry."

Your comment on Bill Gates supports that you don't have to attend college at all if you are smart, have a good idea and connections. The Facebook origin story is a bit of a better example where Zuck attending Harvard and meeting all his co-founders was more relevant.

Again...just don't use statistics that don't actually support the conclusion you are trying to make.