Degrees where college prestige matters

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I just read a bio of the CEO of T Rowe Price. He went to Towson then got an MBA from Wharton. Despite Wharton being the top business school on Wall Street, he still faced discrimination in finance hiring because of going to Towson.


This just made me laugh. Obviously it didn't hurt him that much.....
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In the legal field, the prestige of your law school is what matters, not undergrad. And going to a fancy undergrad doesn’t give you an admissions boost for law school except maybe on the very edges. It’s all LSAT and GPA. In fact for someone targeting a T14 law school it might be a better strategy to go to a state school for undergrad if you can do better there (less competition).


Everyone gives this advice, but I have never seen anything that supports it...at all. Yale law school is 70% kids from just 20 undergraduate schools (all top schools), and then 30% come from 150+ other schools (i.e., 1 kid from each school).

The #1 feeder to any T14 school by far, is the undergraduate school. So, Harvard undergrad has the most kids at Harvard law, same for Northwestern, same for UVA.

I wish someone could show a link to an analysis or really anything to support the position that law school is only GPA and LSAT.


I’m the PP you’re responding to. I went to Penn Law, so I can’t comment on Yale. My class of ~250 at Penn comprised at least 50% of public and non-elite college alums. If you look at stats for admitted students (Law School Numbers is one source, although it’s self-reported), the common trend is that they are either at or above both medians for GPA/LSAT or have at least one of GPA/LSAT above the 75th percentile for those schools. The medians now are something like 3.9 GPA/171 LSAT and 75ths are obviously higher. Maybe attending an elite undergrad helps on the margin, like if they’re choosing between two applicants and it’s an “all else equal” situation, but otherwise those two numbers are the key factors. Often a high GPA and a high LSAT (required to get into any of those schools) means that the student is a strong academic performer and a strong standardized test taker, which sometimes/often correlates with the prestige of their undergrad institution. Obviously there are good reasons why it might not, and in my experience and also as borne out by empirical evidence if you look at T14 admits, students who are able to perform at that level (regardless of undergrad school) are not left out.

I would posit that the correlation between YLS admissions and T20 undergrad institutions is mostly just a correlation. The students admitted to YLS are, in all likelihood, lifelong high academic achievers. It makes sense that those students disproportionately attend T20 undergrad schools. Also, for what it’s worth, YLS is well known in law school admissions to be more “black box” and to value soft factors (i.e., not LSAT/GPA) more than their peer schools do. So maybe undergrad institution is a factor for them, I don’t know.


Once more, 50% of the class is coming from 20 schools and 50% is coming from 200+ schools. So, once more...even your example doesn't support your conclusion.

People can "posit" anything they want to pull out of their a**. Show me a true independent analysis that either proves you right (or proves me wrong).


I’m telling you this as someone who actually went through the law school admissions process and attended one of these schools. This is the advice I’d give my own kid. Multiple posters at this point have explained that there’s an obvious correlation between high academic achievers (counting both standardized test scores and GPA) and elite undergrad institutions, which partially explains why those institutions are overrepresented at elite law schools. I’m not going to spend any more time looking for evidence for you, but there’s plenty available if you care to do any research on this. You can start by looking at admitted student profiles on LSN, Reddit, and the TLS forum. The overriding factors in law school admissions are LSAT and GPA, prestige of undergrad institution is really not meaningful except insofar as it correlates to the obvious fact that these schools tend to produce students with extremely high GPAs (because those students were already exceptional academic achievers) AND 97th+ percentile LSAT scores of 170 and above.

If you have, and want to throw away, $400k on an elite college because you think it’s a good investment for elite law school admissions, it’s your money. You’re still incorrect about it.


You actually don't have any evidence. You just have random bits of information. True evidence would be Law School admissions folks going on the record and saying exactly what you say above, or USNEWS or anyone doing some kind of analysis and coming to a fairly definitive conclusion that undergrad schools don't matter.

You are upset because your "evidence" doesn't support your conclusion...at all. When you say 50% of your law school class came from just 20 schools....that is statistically significant evidence that you yourself provided.

50% of Harvard undergrads go to public schools. Do you honestly think that means it isn't an advantage to graduate from Exeter or Andover for admission to Harvard that have outsized %ages of the class going to Harvard? Those kids still have high GPAs and test scores.

I think law school in general is a waste of $$$s. I would not encourage my kid to go to law school at all.

I am just asking for anyone to provide something of substance (from any reputable 3rd party). to support their assertions regarding law school and undergrad. That's it.


If you’re looking for some sort of study that disproves that a disproportionate number (relative to the total population of US college students) of T14 admits attended elite undergrad institutions, you’re not going to find it. Obviously that’s true. I’m saying attending an elite undergrad is not a significant advantage or plus factor in elite law school admissions. Those two facts can coexist. I and other PPs have explained this already, so this is the last time I’m going to engage with you, but students who meet T14 admissions criteria of an extremely high GPA AND LSAT are way more likely to come from a certain subset of colleges for a variety of reasons. But students who meet this criteria from non-elite undergrad institutions are also admitted. It’s about meeting the basic admissions criteria, which is a high bar. Law school admissions is actually extremely predictable, regardless of a student’s undergrad institution.

And by the same token, I disagree that attending an elite private high school makes admission to an elite undergrad more likely *for a kid who meets the qualifications*. There are empirical studies on this, at least at the HS level. A kid who has the scores/soft factors to be admitted by an elite undergrad institution isn’t harmed by attending public high school. It’s just that the kids at elite private/boarding schools also tend to have advantages (wealthy parents who can pay for enrichment and tutoring, can make massive donations to universities, have family legacy, etc.), and sometimes those advantages can help a kid who might not have gotten in if they were just average Joe at a public school. It’s correlation, not causation. And I actually think in today’s age of DEI, elite universities are sensitive to the perception that rich kids are buying their way in. All else equal, they might admit the public school kid instead. I interview for my elite undergrad college and see the admissions results; the public school kids I interview have had a better admissions rate than the private school kids over the past few years.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:For CS and related majors it matters more again (almost like the mid-2000s when today's parents were getting degrees). There are fewer entry level roles at the best employers, so there is more competition. For a while, people were thinking they should just go to the least expensive school and strategically pick a CS/eng major, but times are a changing in the tech and quant worlds.

disagree.

Google used to hire only from certain schools. They stopped doing that a decade or so ago because they realized that they were missing out on talent. They even removed the degree requirement for software programmers.

The CS job landscape is changing, but it's not requiring prestigious degrees to land a job.

-former Googler
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what “speciality” is accessible only to nurses who come from a top school??


Nurse here. NIH research positions. The internal hiring people (NOT the HR staff who determine cert via USAJobs) love Hopkins-trained nurses.

Suburban Hospital— also a Hopkins property— likes Hopkins and Maryland grads. They also discriminate on the basis of age (prefer the under-27 set who is likely to be moving on soon to CRNA anyway)

Georgetown Hospital seems to have more CUA grads than any other undergrad.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I will play:

Nursing-absolutely not, same salaries for Ivy or CC trained nurses, same options for NP/PA school(many which are online).

Lawyers--seems this one is the most important to land high paying jobs, though still think being connected(through family or friends) and good social skills come a long way

Medicine-absolutely not, MD/DO the same, i guess if you are a cash pay derm/psych r plastic surgeon and Ivy will get you more customers but charisma. how you do your work and patient referrals do more for you.

Social work--not really-cash pay patients seeing online degree therapists also a thing here, more about your marketing skills than therapy skills.


Disagree about medicine. It does matter- depending on what specialty and where you want to work. Where you go to school can absolutely affect what type of residency you match with (and if you get your first choice) and what institution hires you afterward. Most doctors are not private practice, therefore they are subjected to the hiring process by a panel like other professionals, where they do consider your credentials.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I will play:

Nursing-absolutely not, same salaries for Ivy or CC trained nurses, same options for NP/PA school(many which are online).

Lawyers--seems this one is the most important to land high paying jobs, though still think being connected(through family or friends) and good social skills come a long way

Medicine-absolutely not, MD/DO the same, i guess if you are a cash pay derm/psych r plastic surgeon and Ivy will get you more customers but charisma. how you do your work and patient referrals do more for you.

Social work--not really-cash pay patients seeing online degree therapists also a thing here, more about your marketing skills than therapy skills.


Disagree about medicine. It does matter- depending on what specialty and where you want to work. Where you go to school can absolutely affect what type of residency you match with (and if you get your first choice) and what institution hires you afterward. Most doctors are not private practice, therefore they are subjected to the hiring process by a panel like other professionals, where they do consider your credentials.


You get into a desired residency based on usmle 2 scores-they got rid of scoring for part 1 due to equity LOL. What really gets you into a good residency is research and being published in selective med journals (this is hard to do when you are volunteering cleaning poop in the hospital so you can get into med school)-which can be done also by foreign trained docs(who didnt have to clean poop in their foreign countries to become docs)-have foreign med school derm friend who went research way to derm residency-making 1mil doing botox and fillers is so cal now....life is good

Anonymous
if your kid has to major in the humanities - classics, literature, history, sociology - try to go to an ivy. The degree with will be likely useless, by the name of the ivy on his/her resume will not.

I still do regret studying literature, but because I did it at Yale and Harvard (BA through PhD), I managed to make the transition from academia pretty painlessly. It shocked me how much the name impressed potential employers even though I felt woefully unqualified in terms of experience. People just assumed that I was smart enough to pick up new skills and fields of knowledge very quickly.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:if your kid has to major in the humanities - classics, literature, history, sociology - try to go to an ivy. The degree with will be likely useless, by the name of the ivy on his/her resume will not.

I still do regret studying literature, but because I did it at Yale and Harvard (BA through PhD), I managed to make the transition from academia pretty painlessly. It shocked me how much the name impressed potential employers even though I felt woefully unqualified in terms of experience. People just assumed that I was smart enough to pick up new skills and fields of knowledge very quickly.


which is probably true, also with social media and most of sales online good writing skills go a looong way
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I will play:

Nursing-absolutely not, same salaries for Ivy or CC trained nurses, same options for NP/PA school(many which are online).

Lawyers--seems this one is the most important to land high paying jobs, though still think being connected(through family or friends) and good social skills come a long way

Medicine-absolutely not, MD/DO the same, i guess if you are a cash pay derm/psych r plastic surgeon and Ivy will get you more customers but charisma. how you do your work and patient referrals do more for you.

Social work--not really-cash pay patients seeing online degree therapists also a thing here, more about your marketing skills than therapy skills.


Disagree about medicine. It does matter- depending on what specialty and where you want to work. Where you go to school can absolutely affect what type of residency you match with (and if you get your first choice) and what institution hires you afterward. Most doctors are not private practice, therefore they are subjected to the hiring process by a panel like other professionals, where they do consider your credentials.


BTW my joke is "who does "name random for profit medical system" hire? a pulse with a degree
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In the legal field, the prestige of your law school is what matters, not undergrad. And going to a fancy undergrad doesn’t give you an admissions boost for law school except maybe on the very edges. It’s all LSAT and GPA. In fact for someone targeting a T14 law school it might be a better strategy to go to a state school for undergrad if you can do better there (less competition).


Everyone gives this advice, but I have never seen anything that supports it...at all. Yale law school is 70% kids from just 20 undergraduate schools (all top schools), and then 30% come from 150+ other schools (i.e., 1 kid from each school).

The #1 feeder to any T14 school by far, is the undergraduate school. So, Harvard undergrad has the most kids at Harvard law, same for Northwestern, same for UVA.

I wish someone could show a link to an analysis or really anything to support the position that law school is only GPA and LSAT.


I’m the PP you’re responding to. I went to Penn Law, so I can’t comment on Yale. My class of ~250 at Penn comprised at least 50% of public and non-elite college alums. If you look at stats for admitted students (Law School Numbers is one source, although it’s self-reported), the common trend is that they are either at or above both medians for GPA/LSAT or have at least one of GPA/LSAT above the 75th percentile for those schools. The medians now are something like 3.9 GPA/171 LSAT and 75ths are obviously higher. Maybe attending an elite undergrad helps on the margin, like if they’re choosing between two applicants and it’s an “all else equal” situation, but otherwise those two numbers are the key factors. Often a high GPA and a high LSAT (required to get into any of those schools) means that the student is a strong academic performer and a strong standardized test taker, which sometimes/often correlates with the prestige of their undergrad institution. Obviously there are good reasons why it might not, and in my experience and also as borne out by empirical evidence if you look at T14 admits, students who are able to perform at that level (regardless of undergrad school) are not left out.

I would posit that the correlation between YLS admissions and T20 undergrad institutions is mostly just a correlation. The students admitted to YLS are, in all likelihood, lifelong high academic achievers. It makes sense that those students disproportionately attend T20 undergrad schools. Also, for what it’s worth, YLS is well known in law school admissions to be more “black box” and to value soft factors (i.e., not LSAT/GPA) more than their peer schools do. So maybe undergrad institution is a factor for them, I don’t know.


Once more, 50% of the class is coming from 20 schools and 50% is coming from 200+ schools. So, once more...even your example doesn't support your conclusion.

People can "posit" anything they want to pull out of their a**. Show me a true independent analysis that either proves you right (or proves me wrong).


I’m telling you this as someone who actually went through the law school admissions process and attended one of these schools. This is the advice I’d give my own kid. Multiple posters at this point have explained that there’s an obvious correlation between high academic achievers (counting both standardized test scores and GPA) and elite undergrad institutions, which partially explains why those institutions are overrepresented at elite law schools. I’m not going to spend any more time looking for evidence for you, but there’s plenty available if you care to do any research on this. You can start by looking at admitted student profiles on LSN, Reddit, and the TLS forum. The overriding factors in law school admissions are LSAT and GPA, prestige of undergrad institution is really not meaningful except insofar as it correlates to the obvious fact that these schools tend to produce students with extremely high GPAs (because those students were already exceptional academic achievers) AND 97th+ percentile LSAT scores of 170 and above.

If you have, and want to throw away, $400k on an elite college because you think it’s a good investment for elite law school admissions, it’s your money. You’re still incorrect about it.


You actually don't have any evidence. You just have random bits of information. True evidence would be Law School admissions folks going on the record and saying exactly what you say above, or USNEWS or anyone doing some kind of analysis and coming to a fairly definitive conclusion that undergrad schools don't matter.

You are upset because your "evidence" doesn't support your conclusion...at all. When you say 50% of your law school class came from just 20 schools....that is statistically significant evidence that you yourself provided.

50% of Harvard undergrads go to public schools. Do you honestly think that means it isn't an advantage to graduate from Exeter or Andover for admission to Harvard that have outsized %ages of the class going to Harvard? Those kids still have high GPAs and test scores.

I think law school in general is a waste of $$$s. I would not encourage my kid to go to law school at all.

I am just asking for anyone to provide something of substance (from any reputable 3rd party). to support their assertions regarding law school and undergrad. That's it.


If you’re looking for some sort of study that disproves that a disproportionate number (relative to the total population of US college students) of T14 admits attended elite undergrad institutions, you’re not going to find it. Obviously that’s true. I’m saying attending an elite undergrad is not a significant advantage or plus factor in elite law school admissions. Those two facts can coexist. I and other PPs have explained this already, so this is the last time I’m going to engage with you, but students who meet T14 admissions criteria of an extremely high GPA AND LSAT are way more likely to come from a certain subset of colleges for a variety of reasons. But students who meet this criteria from non-elite undergrad institutions are also admitted. It’s about meeting the basic admissions criteria, which is a high bar. Law school admissions is actually extremely predictable, regardless of a student’s undergrad institution.

And by the same token, I disagree that attending an elite private high school makes admission to an elite undergrad more likely *for a kid who meets the qualifications*. There are empirical studies on this, at least at the HS level. A kid who has the scores/soft factors to be admitted by an elite undergrad institution isn’t harmed by attending public high school. It’s just that the kids at elite private/boarding schools also tend to have advantages (wealthy parents who can pay for enrichment and tutoring, can make massive donations to universities, have family legacy, etc.), and sometimes those advantages can help a kid who might not have gotten in if they were just average Joe at a public school. It’s correlation, not causation. And I actually think in today’s age of DEI, elite universities are sensitive to the perception that rich kids are buying their way in. All else equal, they might admit the public school kid instead. I interview for my elite undergrad college and see the admissions results; the public school kids I interview have had a better admissions rate than the private school kids over the past few years.


I am looking for a study that analyzes law school admissions and definitively comes to the conclusion that undergraduate institution does not matter. That a 4.0 and 178 from Frostburg State, beats a 3.95 and 177 from Stanford 99/100 times for T14 admission.

Absent that study, everything that has been written many, many times on DCUM is absolutely not supported by the empirical evidence.

Case closed.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In the legal field, the prestige of your law school is what matters, not undergrad. And going to a fancy undergrad doesn’t give you an admissions boost for law school except maybe on the very edges. It’s all LSAT and GPA. In fact for someone targeting a T14 law school it might be a better strategy to go to a state school for undergrad if you can do better there (less competition).


Everyone gives this advice, but I have never seen anything that supports it...at all. Yale law school is 70% kids from just 20 undergraduate schools (all top schools), and then 30% come from 150+ other schools (i.e., 1 kid from each school).

The #1 feeder to any T14 school by far, is the undergraduate school. So, Harvard undergrad has the most kids at Harvard law, same for Northwestern, same for UVA.

I wish someone could show a link to an analysis or really anything to support the position that law school is only GPA and LSAT.


I’m the PP you’re responding to. I went to Penn Law, so I can’t comment on Yale. My class of ~250 at Penn comprised at least 50% of public and non-elite college alums. If you look at stats for admitted students (Law School Numbers is one source, although it’s self-reported), the common trend is that they are either at or above both medians for GPA/LSAT or have at least one of GPA/LSAT above the 75th percentile for those schools. The medians now are something like 3.9 GPA/171 LSAT and 75ths are obviously higher. Maybe attending an elite undergrad helps on the margin, like if they’re choosing between two applicants and it’s an “all else equal” situation, but otherwise those two numbers are the key factors. Often a high GPA and a high LSAT (required to get into any of those schools) means that the student is a strong academic performer and a strong standardized test taker, which sometimes/often correlates with the prestige of their undergrad institution. Obviously there are good reasons why it might not, and in my experience and also as borne out by empirical evidence if you look at T14 admits, students who are able to perform at that level (regardless of undergrad school) are not left out.

I would posit that the correlation between YLS admissions and T20 undergrad institutions is mostly just a correlation. The students admitted to YLS are, in all likelihood, lifelong high academic achievers. It makes sense that those students disproportionately attend T20 undergrad schools. Also, for what it’s worth, YLS is well known in law school admissions to be more “black box” and to value soft factors (i.e., not LSAT/GPA) more than their peer schools do. So maybe undergrad institution is a factor for them, I don’t know.


Once more, 50% of the class is coming from 20 schools and 50% is coming from 200+ schools. So, once more...even your example doesn't support your conclusion.

People can "posit" anything they want to pull out of their a**. Show me a true independent analysis that either proves you right (or proves me wrong).


I’m telling you this as someone who actually went through the law school admissions process and attended one of these schools. This is the advice I’d give my own kid. Multiple posters at this point have explained that there’s an obvious correlation between high academic achievers (counting both standardized test scores and GPA) and elite undergrad institutions, which partially explains why those institutions are overrepresented at elite law schools. I’m not going to spend any more time looking for evidence for you, but there’s plenty available if you care to do any research on this. You can start by looking at admitted student profiles on LSN, Reddit, and the TLS forum. The overriding factors in law school admissions are LSAT and GPA, prestige of undergrad institution is really not meaningful except insofar as it correlates to the obvious fact that these schools tend to produce students with extremely high GPAs (because those students were already exceptional academic achievers) AND 97th+ percentile LSAT scores of 170 and above.

If you have, and want to throw away, $400k on an elite college because you think it’s a good investment for elite law school admissions, it’s your money. You’re still incorrect about it.


You actually don't have any evidence. You just have random bits of information. True evidence would be Law School admissions folks going on the record and saying exactly what you say above, or USNEWS or anyone doing some kind of analysis and coming to a fairly definitive conclusion that undergrad schools don't matter.

You are upset because your "evidence" doesn't support your conclusion...at all. When you say 50% of your law school class came from just 20 schools....that is statistically significant evidence that you yourself provided.

50% of Harvard undergrads go to public schools. Do you honestly think that means it isn't an advantage to graduate from Exeter or Andover for admission to Harvard that have outsized %ages of the class going to Harvard? Those kids still have high GPAs and test scores.

I think law school in general is a waste of $$$s. I would not encourage my kid to go to law school at all.

I am just asking for anyone to provide something of substance (from any reputable 3rd party). to support their assertions regarding law school and undergrad. That's it.


If you’re looking for some sort of study that disproves that a disproportionate number (relative to the total population of US college students) of T14 admits attended elite undergrad institutions, you’re not going to find it. Obviously that’s true. I’m saying attending an elite undergrad is not a significant advantage or plus factor in elite law school admissions. Those two facts can coexist. I and other PPs have explained this already, so this is the last time I’m going to engage with you, but students who meet T14 admissions criteria of an extremely high GPA AND LSAT are way more likely to come from a certain subset of colleges for a variety of reasons. But students who meet this criteria from non-elite undergrad institutions are also admitted. It’s about meeting the basic admissions criteria, which is a high bar. Law school admissions is actually extremely predictable, regardless of a student’s undergrad institution.

And by the same token, I disagree that attending an elite private high school makes admission to an elite undergrad more likely *for a kid who meets the qualifications*. There are empirical studies on this, at least at the HS level. A kid who has the scores/soft factors to be admitted by an elite undergrad institution isn’t harmed by attending public high school. It’s just that the kids at elite private/boarding schools also tend to have advantages (wealthy parents who can pay for enrichment and tutoring, can make massive donations to universities, have family legacy, etc.), and sometimes those advantages can help a kid who might not have gotten in if they were just average Joe at a public school. It’s correlation, not causation. And I actually think in today’s age of DEI, elite universities are sensitive to the perception that rich kids are buying their way in. All else equal, they might admit the public school kid instead. I interview for my elite undergrad college and see the admissions results; the public school kids I interview have had a better admissions rate than the private school kids over the past few years.


I looked and could not find any. Really want to see the link to your empirical studies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what “speciality” is accessible only to nurses who come from a top school??


I suspect that is a false statement. Maybe for specialty Masters or advanced nursing programs but not for BSN/undergrad nursing programs. It's all about passing the NCLEX. So ideally you want to select a program where a high percentage of their students pass (and on the first or 2nd try)---that means the material is well taught, kids are prepared with classes and clinicals to do well.
That is what matters most.

Anonymous
Supposedly Penn Nursing grads are offered really high-paying positions...over $100k to start.

I don't know if this is a COL difference or even what a CC nurse makes.

It sounds impressive, but maybe that is what all nurses make?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Supposedly Penn Nursing grads are offered really high-paying positions...over $100k to start.

I don't know if this is a COL difference or even what a CC nurse makes.

It sounds impressive, but maybe that is what all nurses make?


A hospital will not pay a nurse more or less just based on the name of the college-this just isnt true.

They do have a higher chance of scoring a Penn medical resident-husband or wife though than through an online degree
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Supposedly Penn Nursing grads are offered really high-paying positions...over $100k to start.

I don't know if this is a COL difference or even what a CC nurse makes.

It sounds impressive, but maybe that is what all nurses make?


A hospital will not pay a nurse more or less just based on the name of the college-this just isnt true.

They do have a higher chance of scoring a Penn medical resident-husband or wife though than through an online degree


So, is this what all nurses make? I honestly don't know. Sounds like a nice career.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: