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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s son is a business major at a middling state flagship. He applied, and worked very hard, to win a coveted internship working on the school’s endowment. Through this connection he is now interning at a PE firm where all of the other interns go to Princeton. So yes, he is working side by side with Princeton kids but he knows that he will have to work twice as hard to get the same respect from his peers and bosses.

I think there is a lot more discrimination in the workplace based on how someone looks than where they got their degree.

+1, obviously it isn't an outright threshold, but many workplaces do actively seek attractive people to work on their teams over most credentialed.

[Anonymous]

Bloomberg New analysis of more than 1,500 4-year colleges show the return on investment of private elite colleges outside of the 8 Ivies is no better than far-less selective colleges.

In fact, the hidden return on so-called "Hidden Ivies"- a list of 63 top private colleges--is about 49% less than the 8 official Ivies and 9% less than public flagships.

10-years out a private elite college is worth about $135,000 compared to $265,000 at one of the 8 Ivies.

At more than 140 public institutions, the majority of Applicants are able to return more than $135,00 for the typical student after 10 years. And public flagships have typical 10-year ROI of $148,000.

[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?!

You premise is wrong. An individual can absolutely end up in the same place. But the average graduate does not and it is not even remotely close between Yale/Princeton and Rutgers/Radford.

100% very important distinction, and it trickles down the line. Uchicago and BC are "closer" in rank than iv vs Rutgers, yet the average grad remains much different. That can matter for many students, they will be pushed by how ambitious the peers are. For other students they have their goals and stick to them even if the majority at their college are aiming a lot lower. Mine picked an ivy over a full ride to a T40 i part for that reason.
And its been the right place for them: a large percentage are MD or md-phd bound, and through their 1 to 2 year older peers they have a network that has already been accepted to top med schools. It gives them on the ground insight from peers on what it takes, a different perspective than one gets from premed advising or profs. They had friends from high school go to the T40 and all they ever say is it is so hard, half drop after first year, almost no one makes it. Well almost everyone makes it into med school at the T10, and it is rare to drop for grade reasons because Cs are so rare. Med school is seen as almost inevitable as long as you work hard and listen to advice. Instead they push each other to try for the top Big Research Meds. ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bloomberg New analysis of more than 1,500 4-year colleges show the return on investment of private elite colleges outside of the 8 Ivies is no better than far-less selective colleges.

In fact, the hidden return on so-called "Hidden Ivies"- a list of 63 top private colleges--is about 49% less than the 8 official Ivies and 9% less than public flagships.

10-years out a private elite college is worth about $135,000 compared to $265,000 at one of the 8 Ivies.

At more than 140 public institutions, the majority of Applicants are able to return more than $135,00 for the typical student after 10 years. And public flagships have typical 10-year ROI of $148,000.

That is all well and good if one cares about ROI. Ours did not pick colleges with ROI in mind or they each would have gone for free to schools in the 40-100 rank range. We picked for peer group and the widest variety of successful career or grad/prof school chances across a variety of fields, since more than half change majors. There are only about 15-16 schools in this country that are on all target lists for top recruiters, AND are top phd/MD/law feeders, and have smaller classes (majority under 30, rare or no lectures over 250) and huge endowments per student that support undergraduate research in stem AND humanities. Not coincidentally, these schools correspond almost exactly to the 15-20 with the highest SAT ranges before test optional. Bright peers are guaranteed. Great outcomes are for the taking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bloomberg New analysis of more than 1,500 4-year colleges show the return on investment of private elite colleges outside of the 8 Ivies is no better than far-less selective colleges.

In fact, the hidden return on so-called "Hidden Ivies"- a list of 63 top private colleges--is about 49% less than the 8 official Ivies and 9% less than public flagships.

10-years out a private elite college is worth about $135,000 compared to $265,000 at one of the 8 Ivies.

At more than 140 public institutions, the majority of Applicants are able to return more than $135,00 for the typical student after 10 years. And public flagships have typical 10-year ROI of $148,000.

I think this is why people have a list that is 'Ivy-T1-10' or top flagship a lot of the time. It's a 'what we are willing to pay for' conversation with the kids when you could afford full pay (but not filthy rich). It's like if the kid loves it, worked hard and gets into the high reach--ok. But, sometimes the size and fit matter more and people will pay for the '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?!

The point is the education. You may value that or not.

[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?!

They don't. Just because some students from less selective schools end up working in the same jobs as those from top schools does not mean that the average outcomes across all students at elites is the same as those of less selectives. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So unfortunately after 19 pages of comments, the only person who could quantify a person doing better after going to an ivy, was the poster whose friend married a guy who makes bank. Yikes.

Well I’m also a SAHM married to a partner who is making bank, and we BOTH went to no-name universities. So does that cancel out the other comment?

Yes it does.👍

I’ll double cancel it. I’m married to a guy who makes a ton, and his college folded and doesn’t even exist anymore. It was a no name before that.

Sometimes it really doesn’t matter where you go.

Quite honestly many times it doesn’t matter if you go at all. I doubt your guy had to attend college at all.

I agree with you on that. One of our kids brings up that exact point to us and is considering not going. A specific degree and certification is required for my job but I make a fraction of DH. For DH, he says college only helped him get his first job, which helped him get the connections for everything else. It was worth it for that and only that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bloomberg New analysis of more than 1,500 4-year colleges show the return on investment of private elite colleges outside of the 8 Ivies is no better than far-less selective colleges.

In fact, the hidden return on so-called "Hidden Ivies"- a list of 63 top private colleges--is about 49% less than the 8 official Ivies and 9% less than public flagships.

10-years out a private elite college is worth about $135,000 compared to $265,000 at one of the 8 Ivies.

At more than 140 public institutions, the majority of Applicants are able to return more than $135,00 for the typical student after 10 years. And public flagships have typical 10-year ROI of $148,000.

ROI looks at the cost of college vs jobs obtained. The Ivy schools all provide generous FA and nearly 50% receive it…Princeton it’s close to 70% because they are more generous. Therefore the average net cost is very low and ROIs are the highest.

It’s also really a metric for parents who are often footing the bill or a kid who has to take on loans…so yes it’s important.

The WSJ looked at average salaries for grads of top privates and public’s for jobs in different industries. With the exception of Berkeley which had the highest average salary for many jobs for publics, the #20 private had a higher average salary than the #2-20 public.

The differential was anywhere from $5 k to $30k (for the 20th public).

If the kid’s investment is $0 then the ROI from the top privates are still anywhere from higher to much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bloomberg New analysis of more than 1,500 4-year colleges show the return on investment of private elite colleges outside of the 8 Ivies is no better than far-less selective colleges.

In fact, the hidden return on so-called "Hidden Ivies"- a list of 63 top private colleges--is about 49% less than the 8 official Ivies and 9% less than public flagships.

10-years out a private elite college is worth about $135,000 compared to $265,000 at one of the 8 Ivies.

At more than 140 public institutions, the majority of Applicants are able to return more than $135,00 for the typical student after 10 years. And public flagships have typical 10-year ROI of $148,000.

I laughed when I read this. Been in consulting for too long not to recognize when someone is playing games with numbers to create a narrative. I am intrigued. What constitutes these non-Ivy private elite colleges? Stanford? Duke? MIT? Caltech? Are you saying that the Cornell or Brown or Columbia alum is at an advantage over a Stanford alum? Somehow I suspect not.

There is no need to dwell on the rest of your post. I will say two thing. First, I don't think anyone refutes the more elite the college, the higher the average aptitude and the greater the average long term financial outcome (as the relationship between aptitude and success is clear). Second, the elite colleges (whoever they are) do not have the monopoly on high aptitude students. Many go to "lesser" schools for various reasons. Is the long term outcome, as measured by financial success, worse for these high aptitude kids who didn't get into Harvard despite having stats exactly the same as the typical Harvard admit? Nothing to suggest this at all. People who talk about average student at X school versus average student at Harvard are missing the point entirely. Repeatedly. Over and over again.

Believe what you want to believe. There are many routes to success in life. An elite diploma is only one of them and even then it is only a tool, not the means. Plenty of kids go to elite colleges and go nowhere. Plenty of kids go to diploma mills and end up leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s son is a business major at a middling state flagship. He applied, and worked very hard, to win a coveted internship working on the school’s endowment. Through this connection he is now interning at a PE firm where all of the other interns go to Princeton. So yes, he is working side by side with Princeton kids but he knows that he will have to work twice as hard to get the same respect from his peers and bosses.

As someone who sits on the other side of the desk I can assure you your assumption is wrong. All new interns or analysts are treated and viewed equally regardless of where they went to school. They are all given equal chances to prove themselves. No one is looked at more critically due to where they went to school.

I don't care where my best performers went to college. Some went to Ivies, some went to state universities. I can't speak for specific industries or firms but in real life once you're in your first job no one cares where you went to undergrad.

This. Aside from a handful of hedge funds run by dinosaurs, no one cares once you’re through the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s son is a business major at a middling state flagship. He applied, and worked very hard, to win a coveted internship working on the school’s endowment. Through this connection he is now interning at a PE firm where all of the other interns go to Princeton. So yes, he is working side by side with Princeton kids but he knows that he will have to work twice as hard to get the same respect from his peers and bosses.

As someone who sits on the other side of the desk I can assure you your assumption is wrong. All new interns or analysts are treated and viewed equally regardless of where they went to school. They are all given equal chances to prove themselves. No one is looked at more critically due to where they went to school.

I don't care where my best performers went to college. Some went to Ivies, some went to state universities. I can't speak for specific industries or firms but in real life once you're in your first job no one cares where you went to undergrad.

This. Aside from a handful of hedge funds run by dinosaurs, no one cares once you’re through the door.

What are the hedge funds run by dinosaurs?

The entire point is who gets through the door to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s son is a business major at a middling state flagship. He applied, and worked very hard, to win a coveted internship working on the school’s endowment. Through this connection he is now interning at a PE firm where all of the other interns go to Princeton. So yes, he is working side by side with Princeton kids but he knows that he will have to work twice as hard to get the same respect from his peers and bosses.

As someone who sits on the other side of the desk I can assure you your assumption is wrong. All new interns or analysts are treated and viewed equally regardless of where they went to school. They are all given equal chances to prove themselves. No one is looked at more critically due to where they went to school.

I don't care where my best performers went to college. Some went to Ivies, some went to state universities. I can't speak for specific industries or firms but in real life once you're in your first job no one cares where you went to undergrad.

Do you sit on the other side of a private equity desk?

[Anonymous]

Yes, get a great education, but YOU MUST marry well into the right family. And your children and grandkids will do the same. Keep generation wealth going. That is the key.

Learn to save. Invest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bloomberg New analysis of more than 1,500 4-year colleges show the return on investment of private elite colleges outside of the 8 Ivies is no better than far-less selective colleges.

In fact, the hidden return on so-called "Hidden Ivies"- a list of 63 top private colleges--is about 49% less than the 8 official Ivies and 9% less than public flagships.

10-years out a private elite college is worth about $135,000 compared to $265,000 at one of the 8 Ivies.

At more than 140 public institutions, the majority of Applicants are able to return more than $135,00 for the typical student after 10 years. And public flagships have typical 10-year ROI of $148,000.

I laughed when I read this. Been in consulting for too long not to recognize when someone is playing games with numbers to create a narrative. I am intrigued. What constitutes these non-Ivy private elite colleges? Stanford? Duke? MIT? Caltech? Are you saying that the Cornell or Brown or Columbia alum is at an advantage over a Stanford alum? Somehow I suspect not.

There is no need to dwell on the rest of your post. I will say two thing. First, I don't think anyone refutes the more elite the college, the higher the average aptitude and the greater the average long term financial outcome (as the relationship between aptitude and success is clear). Second, the elite colleges (whoever they are) do not have the monopoly on high aptitude students. Many go to "lesser" schools for various reasons. Is the long term outcome, as measured by financial success, worse for these high aptitude kids who didn't get into Harvard despite having stats exactly the same as the typical Harvard admit? Nothing to suggest this at all. People who talk about average student at X school versus average student at Harvard are missing the point entirely. Repeatedly. Over and over again.

Believe what you want to believe. There are many routes to success in life. An elite diploma is only one of them and even then it is only a tool, not the means. Plenty of kids go to elite colleges and go nowhere. Plenty of kids go to diploma mills and end up leaders.

Your are correct that not all high aptitude students go to elite colleges. But there is a difference in outcomes. This study examined waitlisted students at Ivy League schools and compared the outcome of students who ended up being accepted versus students who ended up attending the top state flagship schools instead. The study found a measurable difference in outcomes.

Of course, any individual student might not experience said difference. But on average, there is a difference.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf