What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

Honestly, the level of discourse in this thread (and the complete lack of understanding of statistics and to be blunt, how the world works) just reinforces the point that the average Ivy admit is NOT the best and the brightest, but just another privileged spawn of striving, prestige obsessed parents who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag…

OMFG

"correlation =/= causation" is not a substitute for reading comprehension or thinking.

Test scores are not causing these results, tests are MEASURING the thing that is causing these results.

Tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability improved outcomes. It doesn't matter that Larlo has higher cognitive ability because Larlo had the ability to develop their cognitive ability because mommy and daddy invested a crap ton into his human capital, the end result is that Larlo has better cognitive ability. And, that higher cognitive ability means that Larlo is going to have better lifetime outcomes.

But the population of people with high cognitive ability is not limited to wealthy Larlos. It also includes the children of immigrant families that believe in education and are willing to make smart investments in their own children. And a tiny number of kids that are so talented that they would have blossomed in almost any environment.

I understand that some kids have advantages in achieving high cognitive ability because they have parents that are rich or parents that are willing to make sacrifices, but ultimately that is what test scores measure.

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

The rest of your post is laughable. The fact that Larlo needed to take the test six times to achieve a marginally higher score than Susie achieved the first time proves that he WORSE cognitive ability than she does. I also dispute your premise that these tests even measure cognitive ability in the first place. In the current landscape they ultimately measure a student’s aptitude for… taking these particular tests. Which brings us full circle to privilege.

The function of testing has been studied by psychologists since at least WWII. The amount of research that confirms that standardized training measures cognitive ability is so well established that there is no dissent. The controversy is around things like nature vs nurture not whether testing is a valid measure of ability.

Despite what Princeton Review wants you to believe, the SAT does a lot more than test how will you can do on the SATs.

I know you desperately want to believe that test score disparities are the result of some privilege but its not, not at the high end. There, at the high end, it does a pretty good job of measuring ability without regard to wealth or income.

And yet… there IS dissent. Obviously.

Listen, I appreciate that you snowplowed Larlo’s way to a 1580 on his SAT (years of tutoring and it only took him four tries!) and your personal self esteem hinges on everyone else recognizing his genius, BUT - the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

That’s not nothing, to be sure, but it certainly has no bearing on his overall reasoning or problem solving abilities. That lower middle class kid who took the SAT without ever once having seen a practice problem and pulled a 1450 is actually much smarter than Larlo. Sorry.

No, there is no dissent within psychology. The fact that YOU disagree does not indicate dissent. But feel free to cite refereed research indicating that you are correct.

I appreciate that your worldview relies on ignoring the almost unanimous conclusion among psychologists that study intelligence and learning that these tests measure an objective thing that affects lifetime outcomes.
But this is an anonymous board and your posts sound ideologically driven.
So on the one hand we have almost a century of peer reviewed research and the ENTIRE FIELD OF PSYCHOMETRICS saying that these standardized tests are valid and on the other hand we have your reassurances that the only reason anyone would take that stance is because their Larlo did well on a test.

If that lower middle class kid that pulled a 1450 was smarter than a Larlo that got a 1590, you would expect the lower middle class kid that got a 1590 to outperform the Larlo that got a 1590; or the Larlo with a 1590 to underperform the lower middle class kid with the 1590. But the two kids with the same SAT score do almost exactly the same academically regardless of wealth or income.

Please post links to all of the studies that have informed your opinion. I’ll read them and explain what they actually mean, as you undoubtedly need some help. The bolded conclusion indicates you lack critical thinking skills and or basic reading comprehension.

Here is a study from opportunity insights that shows that:
1. Students with higher SAT/ACT scores are more likely to have higher college GPAs; and
2. Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds who have comparable SAT/ACT scores receive similar grades in college.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

There is actually a discipline within psychology that studies how to measure intellect and learning called psychometrics and you are acting like your opinion is as good as their science. How is that any better than trump?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

That was not my basic premise. Again, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired.

I thought you were going to explain the study ACTUALLY means to me.
Where is all that enlightenment you promised?

This was what you said at 19:49 on 4/4

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

Then you said

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

This is in addition to a bunch of insults. This is all visible on the chain if you click the "show earlier quotes" button

Then you ask me to link some of the research I am relying on in this post

Please post links to all of the studies that have informed your opinion. I’ll read them and explain what they actually mean, as you undoubtedly need some help. The bolded conclusion indicates you lack critical thinking skills and or basic reading comprehension.

So I link the opportunity insights study on SAT scores that shows that:
1. Students with higher SAT/ACT scores are more likely to have higher college GPAs; and
2. Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds who have comparable SAT/ACT scores receive similar grades in college.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/up...AT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And you just continue to offer insults rather than "explain the study actually means" to me

You are just the latest in a long line of envious parents who wants their cake after having already eaten it. You wanted your kids to maximize fun during childhood and also go to top schools despite bad test scores. The greatest lesson parents like me teach their kids is deferred gratification, discipline and self control. The worst thing you have done to your kids is convince them that they deserve things they have not earned.ard.

The fact that you think that test prep takes years shows your ignorance. The fact that you think taking the test half a dozen times is an effective method of achieving good results is shows your ignorance. And you are passing that ignorance on to your kids. And in 20 years they will sit in their cubicle grumbling about how some larlo has stolen the life they deserves by prepping for ta test for years and taking the test half a dozen times.

At no point has anyone ever claimed that there is no correlation between test scores and grades.

You don’t even understand the premise of the argument you are very passionately participating in. The “study” you posted is irrelevant to the claims I have made.

In your above screed, you have also made points that are in direct conflict with one another.

Did you do well on your standardized tests? What were your grades like in college? And do you think you’re particularly bright?

You literally say that test scores are meaningless because "we all know" it only measure years of test prep and multiple attempts with superscoring.
You also say it measures privilege in the form of private tutors and infinite chances at superscoring.

The venn diagram of wealth and privilege are not a perfect circle but it's a pretty good proxy.
I linked you a study showing that test scores are not associated with wealth but with academic ability in the form of grades so you could explain to me how I was getting everything wrong and still all you have are insults.

Are you saying that grades are also a result of privilege?
Is there nothing at all that measures actual ability except perhaps oppression and race?

Your rigid, literal thinking is causing you to miss critical *context clues* in the text. I suggest you read through the conversation again while keeping *context* at the top of mind.

It’s quite sad that you (presumably an educated adult) need someone to hold your hand, here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

Apple

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

Apple

He attended one semester.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

I’m guessing that you could do the same research that they did if you are really interested. I mean I just typed “Middlebury Mafia” into my browser and got this

The "Middlebury Mafia" refers to a growing, influential network of Middlebury College alumni establishing a significant presence in Wall Street finance and investment banking, often cited as a competitive alternative to traditional Ivy League pipelines like Harvard or Wharton.
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
+1
Key Aspects of the "Middlebury Mafia":
Wall Street Influence: Alumni from the Vermont liberal arts college are increasingly active in high-level financial services.
Networking and Success: The term highlights the strength of the alumni network in placing graduates into competitive roles.
Industry Presence: The network has been described as part of a trend where "Little Ivies" are challenging top-tier schools in recruiting.
Context: While the term implies a strong, exclusive network, it is used to describe professional clout in finance, rather than any criminal organization.

Didn’t even need AI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

Well, there's also the fact that Stanford, Harvard, and Penn-Wharton grads are destroying the world with their AI and finance garbage. So that's something to consider when choosing a college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

Well, there's also the fact that Stanford, Harvard, and Penn-Wharton grads are destroying the world with their AI and finance garbage. So that's something to consider when choosing a college.

Ouch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

Well, there's also the fact that Stanford, Harvard, and Penn-Wharton grads are destroying the world with their AI and finance garbage. So that's something to consider when choosing a college.

The SLAC poster wasn’t exactly making a claim the grads were solving world hunger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

I’m guessing that you could do the same research that they did if you are really interested. I mean I just typed “Middlebury Mafia” into my browser and got this

The "Middlebury Mafia" refers to a growing, influential network of Middlebury College alumni establishing a significant presence in Wall Street finance and investment banking, often cited as a competitive alternative to traditional Ivy League pipelines like Harvard or Wharton.
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
+1
Key Aspects of the "Middlebury Mafia":
Wall Street Influence: Alumni from the Vermont liberal arts college are increasingly active in high-level financial services.
Networking and Success: The term highlights the strength of the alumni network in placing graduates into competitive roles.
Industry Presence: The network has been described as part of a trend where "Little Ivies" are challenging top-tier schools in recruiting.
Context: While the term implies a strong, exclusive network, it is used to describe professional clout in finance, rather than any criminal organization.

Didn’t even need AI

Funny…so because the Ivy brand is so strong these schools try to create the “Little Ivies”…that sounds like an awful name by the way.

[Anonymous]

Holding Ivy League degrees and having worked at top law and investment firms, I agree with the premise. Working and spending time with highly successful and motivated people pushes you to work hard and succeed. For me it was always about not being embarrassed. Others are motivated by other things such as money. It’s also not just where you go to school. I’ve seen plenty of graduates of unremarkable schools go to top firms and develop into top professionals. Whether it’s in school or employment, you benefit from being challenged by great people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

What paper?

I think that they are referring to the Chetty paper which focused on three groups of schools (about 11 in each group) for Ivy+, Other Elite Private, Top Public. The paper focused on R1s and did not cover the top SLACs which disproportionately send kids into top 1% income careers.

Where is any article supporting that statement?

Other than Netflix…what massively successful startups have come from SLAC grads?

If you think that startups are what takes people into the top 1% you are mistaken. The rise of the Mag7 will have an effect but prior to the past 10 years tech wasn't where the big money was for most people (full disclosure, I did/do work in tech and make well over 1% money but I'm one of the exceptions).

But, there is quite a bit of media discussing the disproportionate per capita numbers of SLAC graduates going on to IB, MBB, Big Law, top Med schools, etc. Corporate Boards (because of the first two items mentions) are also hugely overweight in SLAC grads. FFS Middlebury has so many people on Wall Street that they call them the "Middlebury Mafia". Same goes for Williams, Amherst, and CMC.

Great. Produce some links if there is so much media and research.

I don’t think that startups are the only route but it’s stupid to compare SLACs to schools like Harvard or Penn or Stanford who produce tons of wealthy people in the categories above and produce top .01% graduates who go on to found and run the most influential companies on the planet.

I’m guessing that you could do the same research that they did if you are really interested. I mean I just typed “Middlebury Mafia” into my browser and got this

The "Middlebury Mafia" refers to a growing, influential network of Middlebury College alumni establishing a significant presence in Wall Street finance and investment banking, often cited as a competitive alternative to traditional Ivy League pipelines like Harvard or Wharton.
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
+1
Key Aspects of the "Middlebury Mafia":
Wall Street Influence: Alumni from the Vermont liberal arts college are increasingly active in high-level financial services.
Networking and Success: The term highlights the strength of the alumni network in placing graduates into competitive roles.
Industry Presence: The network has been described as part of a trend where "Little Ivies" are challenging top-tier schools in recruiting.
Context: While the term implies a strong, exclusive network, it is used to describe professional clout in finance, rather than any criminal organization.

Didn’t even need AI

Funny…so because the Ivy brand is so strong these schools try to create the “Little Ivies”…that sounds like an awful name by the way.

You are writing as if the term is new or was coined as part of the current college ranking craze.

The term “Little Ivies” is over 75 years old. The first documented use was in 1955, the first season of the Ivy Leagues existence. It was used by the President of Swarthmore during an interview with the NY Times discussing the small college academic and social peers of the Ivy League Universities.