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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain it to you this way.

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

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

I would argue that the top 5% of the 100 has something, the next 95%.. not so much. At some point the admissions committee just makes their own judgement call based on no facts just feelings. If you are lucky enough, you are chosen. It's a culling process and not a very good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain it to you this way.

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

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

I agree. However, many of the kids who were not chosen were most likely just as qualified and had the same if not more ability than the kids who were admitted.

[Anonymous]

I have hired and not hired many people and I can tell you that a fancy college is low down on my list. I have interviewed many people with impressive degrees that have very poor interpersonal skills and have little apparent creativity on their plate, they are useless in the real business world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain it to you this way.

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

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

I agree. However, many of the kids who were not chosen were most likely just as qualified and had the same if not more ability than the kids who were admitted.

I agree that many qualified kids are cut or don't even try or don't want to burden their UMC parents with the tuition. It is silly to believe otherwise.

Companies are already realizing just going to top Tier schools for recruiting is plain lazy and missing out on talent.

[Anonymous]

"...graduates of a Tier 1 college with a grad degree from a Tier 1 to 3 school earns on average $185,695 a year, a Tier 3 to 4 college graduate with a Tier 1 graduate degree earns on average only $133,236."

What do DCUMers think will happen to a person who "only" earns $133,236 annually? I make a tiny bit less than that with a bachelor's degree in a useless major from a much-maligned Tier 2 school and it's really fine. I am not suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What tools is he referring to to catch up? Research, mentors? Why would a student at a "Tier 4" school with a 4.0 need to "catch up?" What does he mean by catch up anyway? This doesn't make any sense.

Tier 3 and 4 isn't going to have the network, doesn't have the breadth of faculty support, highly unlikely they graduate with a 4.0, and if they didn't do well on ACT/SAT, what makes you think you're going to post a rockstar percentile GMAT-GRE-MCAT-LSAT score?

The whole 'it doesn't matter where you go to college' is not only built on illogical and outlandish assumptions, we learn the truth is it does matter in the end.

[Anonymous]

Agree OP. I always laugh when people from Dummy State say how it doesn't make a difference. Of course it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree OP. I always laugh when people from Dummy State say how it doesn't make a difference. Of course it does.

I bet you that this is OP chiming in to agree with herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me explain it to you this way.

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

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

Based on this former Harvard admissions interviewer, it is close to just that. The interviewers have far more qualified candidates than they have spaces, so they do almost put the names in and pick. They have some indistinct guidelines, but what they are looking for are not just the intelligent eggheads, but the kids most likely to succeed and that is a very subjective description to be distilled from a one hour interview. This is a good read, especially if you have a teen just about to start applying and interviewing for a premier college/university soon.
http://gawker.com/ivy-league-admissions-are-a-sham-confessions-of-a-harv-1690402410

[Anonymous]

There was a NYT article that said something like 80% of students in elite grad schools came from elite undergraduate and that stepping upwards rank wise was very difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Just my experience if it is interesting.

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

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Just my experience if it is interesting.

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

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

What do you expect from a PHD professor, he has spend his whole life in School.

I just hear PHD and I think afraid of the real world, add professor to it and you get afraid to leave school.

[Anonymous]

No, I'm not OP but I went to a third tier state university and kid went to Ivy. Especially for women and minorities, they should go to the best schools they can get in, because they are already behind the 8 ball by not being white men

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree OP. I always laugh when people from Dummy State say how it doesn't make a difference. Of course it does.

I bet you that this is OP chiming in to agree with herself.

[Anonymous]

If the guy making 180,000 graduates with 4-500 K in debt, and the guy making 130,000 has no debt, then we could argue that he's actually the smarter guy who took the right deal, regardless of what his diploma says.

[Anonymous]

So, I think this book is an interesting perspective on this...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-be-frank-bruni-college-20150319-story.html