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: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?

NYC's mayor.

[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?

NYC's mayor.

Mamdani is not a startup