Why do people insist that their kid can always "go to an Ivy for grad school?"

[Anonymous]

Why not just go to Cornell College and hope that employers don't know the difference ?

[Anonymous]

When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to go in a slightly different direction. I agree with the OP that this is something often said on DCUM, but then I've wondered just how easy it is to get into an Ivy or other top grad program, regardless of where the student went to undergrad. Especially if the student wasn't accepted into a "top" (however you want to define it) undergrad school in the first place, why would the person/parent just assume that the student can always "go to an Ivy for grad school"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to go in a slightly different direction. I agree with the OP that this is something often said on DCUM, but then I've wondered just how easy it is to get into an Ivy or other top grad program, regardless of where the student went to undergrad. Especially if the student wasn't accepted into a "top" (however you want to define it) undergrad school in the first place, why would the person/parent just assume that the student can always "go to an Ivy for grad school"?

OP here. I kinda agree with you -- getting into med school as a middling (or good, but not great) high school student will be quite difficult. But some grad programs (mostly PhD programs in the humanities or MFA programs) at Ivies have a cohort that's definitely not as academically strong as the school name might suggest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

I went to a T5 law school and disagree. Yes, there were 7 kids from Harvard and two others from the T10 I attended. But the vast majority of the class was from schools outside the T30. And they did just fine with the prestigious firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to go in a slightly different direction. I agree with the OP that this is something often said on DCUM, but then I've wondered just how easy it is to get into an Ivy or other top grad program, regardless of where the student went to undergrad. Especially if the student wasn't accepted into a "top" (however you want to define it) undergrad school in the first place, why would the person/parent just assume that the student can always "go to an Ivy for grad school"?

Because most Ivy master’s degrees are cash cows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP does have a point if you want to working in banking/finance or tech. If you have a degree from a top undergrad, you can completely skip grad school in those fields. A STEM undergrad from CMU or Stanford or CalTech will let you enter the rarified world of Big Tech and a potential for a big payday. The wealthiest guy I know studied CS at CMU undergrad, worked for Google where he helped invent a product all of you use, and retired at age 39. No grad degree required, he bounced between elite tech firms in the Bay Area before settling in at Google.

Similarly, I know a lot of people that went from undergrad at Harvard & Yale into finance. They ended up being PE execs, running hedge funds, and a partner at Goldman. No grad school or MBA needed; taking that time off would’ve been a massive hit to their career trajectory and life time earnings (forfeiting $300-500K per year to go to school plus $200K spent for an elite MBA). Not worth it.

MBB consulting seems to highly value graduate credentialing. Lawyers and doctors clearly need graduate education. The government and NIH incentivize credentialing to move up the org chart.

So it really depends on what your kid wants to do. But if they want to work in finance, tech, sales, etc? Just go to the best undergrad possible.

OP here. I disagree with sales (most successful salespeople I know went to podunk schools) but yes, the rest of your comment is spot-on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP does have a point if you want to working in banking/finance or tech. If you have a degree from a top undergrad, you can completely skip grad school in those fields. A STEM undergrad from CMU or Stanford or CalTech will let you enter the rarified world of Big Tech and a potential for a big payday. The wealthiest guy I know studied CS at CMU undergrad, worked for Google where he helped invent a product all of you use, and retired at age 39. No grad degree required, he bounced between elite tech firms in the Bay Area before settling in at Google.

Similarly, I know a lot of people that went from undergrad at Harvard & Yale into finance. They ended up being PE execs, running hedge funds, and a partner at Goldman. No grad school or MBA needed; taking that time off would’ve been a massive hit to their career trajectory and life time earnings (forfeiting $300-500K per year to go to school plus $200K spent for an elite MBA). Not worth it.

MBB consulting seems to highly value graduate credentialing. Lawyers and doctors clearly need graduate education. The government and NIH incentivize credentialing to move up the org chart.

So it really depends on what your kid wants to do. But if they want to work in finance, tech, sales, etc? Just go to the best undergrad possible.

So simple and easy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

I went to a T5 law school and disagree. Yes, there were 7 kids from Harvard and two others from the T10 I attended. But the vast majority of the class was from schools outside the T30. And they did just fine with the prestigious firms.

That's because the smartest kids don't go to law school. I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a lecturer at a T5 law school (maybe even the same one that you went to), and she told me how her students' academic skills and work ethic have gone down the drain in the past decade as the smartest students all go to tech or finance. She mentioned how in the past decade or so, there have been less and less students from Ivies at her T5 law school as Ivy alumni opt to skip law school to go into finance or consulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to go in a slightly different direction. I agree with the OP that this is something often said on DCUM, but then I've wondered just how easy it is to get into an Ivy or other top grad program, regardless of where the student went to undergrad. Especially if the student wasn't accepted into a "top" (however you want to define it) undergrad school in the first place, why would the person/parent just assume that the student can always "go to an Ivy for grad school"?

Because "top" (elite) schools cost $$$. A high-performing student can go to a public school or a private one with merit aid and work hard towards their goals, which may or may not involve attending an elite graduate school.

I have a top performer (Blair magnet, straight As, perfect SAT, great ECs) who is at UMD and who didn't apply to elite schools because we cannot pay for them. "Didn't apply" or "wasn't accepted" does not mean "isn't qualified."

[Anonymous]

You have a very narrow view of grad school.

My sister went to Harvard. She went to a large state school for her graduate program because she was looking at the best PROGRAM for her course of study, not name prestige. Within her field, the university she got her PhD from is incredibly well known because the people who run her program are famous in their field.

Not everyone is going to law school or getting an MBA. Some people are actual scholars!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have a very narrow view of grad school.

My sister went to Harvard. She went to a large state school for her graduate program because she was looking at the best PROGRAM for her course of study, not name prestige. Within her field, the university she got her PhD from is incredibly well known because the people who run her program are famous in their field.

Not everyone is going to law school or getting an MBA. Some people are actual scholars!

Being an actual scholar is fine and dandy if your research area happens to be in a lucrative field or you have a trust fund. But otherwise it's a terrible decision. I know tons of academics who regret their life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

OP: Your thoughts are reasonable. If this is what your student wants, then your thoughts are spot-on accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

You need to worry about your own kid.