Perspective on the Madness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t need to argue with anecdotes, there are studies on this. There was the big one in Nature last year that looked at the backgrounds of 26k+ high achievers. Yes, top schools are overrepresented but also, yes, the majority of high achievement people in non-academic fields (academia is a different story) didn’t attend a top-top school. And a lot of the people identified as having attended a top school went there for grad school instead of undergrad.

OP is not wrong that people need to chill a bit. There is life and opportunity outside of four years of college.

Here is the Abstract from the study you cite. Hard to square this with your conclusion:

The highest-achieving figures in politics, business, academia, and the media dominate public discourse and wield great influence in society. Education—perhaps especially at “elite” colleges and universities—may lie at the heart of the divide between the general public and these top achievers. In this paper, we build a new data set for the American “elite” and systematically examine the link between selective schools and outstanding achievements. In Study 1, across 30 different achievement groups totaling 26,198 people, we document patterns of attendance at a set of 34 “Elite” 34 schools, the 8 Ivy League schools, and Harvard University in particular. In Study 2, we surveyed 1810 laypeople to estimate how well they are aware of the key empirical facts from Study 1. We found that exceptional achievement is surprisingly strongly associated with “elite” education, especially obtaining a degree from Harvard, and the general public tends to underestimate the size of this effect. Attending one of just 34 institutions of higher education out of the roughly 4000 in the U.S. appears to be a critical and surprising factor separating extraordinary achievers from others in their fields.

Along these lines, Harvard graduates have a higher rate of incarceration (really), divorce and health problems. This is reported by none other than Harvard professor and father of Disruption Theory, Clayton Christensen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t need to argue with anecdotes, there are studies on this. There was the big one in Nature last year that looked at the backgrounds of 26k+ high achievers. Yes, top schools are overrepresented but also, yes, the majority of high achievement people in non-academic fields (academia is a different story) didn’t attend a top-top school. And a lot of the people identified as having attended a top school went there for grad school instead of undergrad.

OP is not wrong that people need to chill a bit. There is life and opportunity outside of four years of college.

Here is the Abstract from the study you cite. Hard to square this with your conclusion:

The highest-achieving figures in politics, business, academia, and the media dominate public discourse and wield great influence in society. Education—perhaps especially at “elite” colleges and universities—may lie at the heart of the divide between the general public and these top achievers. In this paper, we build a new data set for the American “elite” and systematically examine the link between selective schools and outstanding achievements. In Study 1, across 30 different achievement groups totaling 26,198 people, we document patterns of attendance at a set of 34 “Elite” 34 schools, the 8 Ivy League schools, and Harvard University in particular. In Study 2, we surveyed 1810 laypeople to estimate how well they are aware of the key empirical facts from Study 1. We found that exceptional achievement is surprisingly strongly associated with “elite” education, especially obtaining a degree from Harvard, and the general public tends to underestimate the size of this effect. Attending one of just 34 institutions of higher education out of the roughly 4000 in the U.S. appears to be a critical and surprising factor separating extraordinary achievers from others in their fields.

That’s because I actually read through the study and looked at the data. Go look at Figure 1 and see the variation across different measures of success, with an eye toward professional versus academic measures. Go look at the discussion on undergraduate versus graduate degrees on page 6.

As I said, yes, top schools are overrepresented. No, it isn’t determinative, and there are multiple paths to getting there (i.e., grad school at a top school, grad school at other schools, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t need to argue with anecdotes, there are studies on this. There was the big one in Nature last year that looked at the backgrounds of 26k+ high achievers. Yes, top schools are overrepresented but also, yes, the majority of high achievement people in non-academic fields (academia is a different story) didn’t attend a top-top school. And a lot of the people identified as having attended a top school went there for grad school instead of undergrad.

OP is not wrong that people need to chill a bit. There is life and opportunity outside of four years of college.

Here is the Abstract from the study you cite. Hard to square this with your conclusion:

The highest-achieving figures in politics, business, academia, and the media dominate public discourse and wield great influence in society. Education—perhaps especially at “elite” colleges and universities—may lie at the heart of the divide between the general public and these top achievers. In this paper, we build a new data set for the American “elite” and systematically examine the link between selective schools and outstanding achievements. In Study 1, across 30 different achievement groups totaling 26,198 people, we document patterns of attendance at a set of 34 “Elite” 34 schools, the 8 Ivy League schools, and Harvard University in particular. In Study 2, we surveyed 1810 laypeople to estimate how well they are aware of the key empirical facts from Study 1. We found that exceptional achievement is surprisingly strongly associated with “elite” education, especially obtaining a degree from Harvard, and the general public tends to underestimate the size of this effect. Attending one of just 34 institutions of higher education out of the roughly 4000 in the U.S. appears to be a critical and surprising factor separating extraordinary achievers from others in their fields.

That’s because I actually read through the study and looked at the data. Go look at Figure 1 and see the variation across different measures of success, with an eye toward professional versus academic measures. Go look at the discussion on undergraduate versus graduate degrees on page 6.

As I said, yes, top schools are overrepresented. No, it isn’t determinative, and there are multiple paths to getting there (i.e., grad school at a top school, grad school at other schools, etc).

OK...but why would the authors of the study make such a lopsided conclusion if in fact their own underlying data doesn't support their conclusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t need to argue with anecdotes, there are studies on this. There was the big one in Nature last year that looked at the backgrounds of 26k+ high achievers. Yes, top schools are overrepresented but also, yes, the majority of high achievement people in non-academic fields (academia is a different story) didn’t attend a top-top school. And a lot of the people identified as having attended a top school went there for grad school instead of undergrad.

OP is not wrong that people need to chill a bit. There is life and opportunity outside of four years of college.

Here is the Abstract from the study you cite. Hard to square this with your conclusion:

The highest-achieving figures in politics, business, academia, and the media dominate public discourse and wield great influence in society. Education—perhaps especially at “elite” colleges and universities—may lie at the heart of the divide between the general public and these top achievers. In this paper, we build a new data set for the American “elite” and systematically examine the link between selective schools and outstanding achievements. In Study 1, across 30 different achievement groups totaling 26,198 people, we document patterns of attendance at a set of 34 “Elite” 34 schools, the 8 Ivy League schools, and Harvard University in particular. In Study 2, we surveyed 1810 laypeople to estimate how well they are aware of the key empirical facts from Study 1. We found that exceptional achievement is surprisingly strongly associated with “elite” education, especially obtaining a degree from Harvard, and the general public tends to underestimate the size of this effect. Attending one of just 34 institutions of higher education out of the roughly 4000 in the U.S. appears to be a critical and surprising factor separating extraordinary achievers from others in their fields.

That’s because I actually read through the study and looked at the data. Go look at Figure 1 and see the variation across different measures of success, with an eye toward professional versus academic measures. Go look at the discussion on undergraduate versus graduate degrees on page 6.

As I said, yes, top schools are overrepresented. No, it isn’t determinative, and there are multiple paths to getting there (i.e., grad school at a top school, grad school at other schools, etc).

OK...but why would the authors of the study make such a lopsided conclusion if in fact their own underlying data doesn't support their conclusion?

Their conclusion and my conclusion are not different. These schools are overrepresented amongst high achievers.

Now, they aren’t overrepresented to the same extent across all fields or “groups” of achievement. In some of them—many of the more professional oriented ones, versus academic ones where you absolutely should go to the best school possible—they make up a minority of the group. And more of their representation in these groups comes from grad school alumni versus undergrad.

That’s the perspective OP refers to (I assume).

[Anonymous]

So many of these threads focus on careers. A lot of the reason for going to a top college is the experience you have during your 4 years. For a lot of people the college years are the years during which they form lifelong friendships, develop new interests, form their political beliefs. etc. Usually there is a difference in the level of engagement in classes, especially seminars. There's often a much higher level of engagement in extracurriculars.

IOW, the actual years you spend in college is a different experience. For some people that difference is worth it. For others it isn't. For example, there are people who enjoy being the big fish in a less competitive pond. Others truly enjoy meeting lots of other big fish--even fish decidedly bigger than they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of these threads focus on careers. A lot of the reason for going to a top college is the experience you have during your 4 years. For a lot of people the college years are the years during which they form lifelong friendships, develop new interests, form their political beliefs. etc. Usually there is a difference in the level of engagement in classes, especially seminars. There's often a much higher level of engagement in extracurriculars.

IOW, the actual years you spend in college is a different experience. For some people that difference is worth it. For others it isn't. For example, there are people who enjoy being the big fish in a less competitive pond. Others truly enjoy meeting lots of other big fish--even fish decidedly bigger than they are.

For 100k a year I’d like a job at the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

The top schools may be need-blind, but there are also a lot of affluent UMC families who love their state flagship and aren’t hung up on brand name schools. I noticed that at my kid’s non-DMV private. Plenty of academic stars who opted for our excellent in-state publics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

Need blind is just about admissions. It doesn’t make money appear out of the ether to pay the bill.

And it’s not just about whether you technically can pay. It’s also about whether you should. For example, DC has a brilliant friend currently deciding between an Ivy ($30k of need-based aid per year) and our flagship (merit-based full ride). Kid is leaning toward the flagship. Because in this economy, who commits to paying ~$280k over four years when you can attend a similarly well-known school for free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my field, all top spots are filled by Ivy grads. It’s going to greatly depend on what field you are in. Most it doesn’t matter, a few select fields it really matters. Stem it doesn’t matter.

Law: it matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

Need blind is just about admissions. It doesn’t make money appear out of the ether to pay the bill.

And it’s not just about whether you technically can pay. It’s also about whether you should. For example, DC has a brilliant friend currently deciding between an Ivy ($30k of need-based aid per year) and our flagship (merit-based full ride). Kid is leaning toward the flagship. Because in this economy, who commits to paying ~$280k over four years when you can attend a similarly well-known school for free?

At an ivy or peer school you pay for the experience and connections and peer group that pushes each other to do their best. When you have a kid at one (or more) and you compare it to the experience of the top instate schools, it is very different. Internships after sophomore year are the norm at an ivy, rare elsewhere. Professors who care and reach out to contacts at other schools to help find summer opportunities is also the norm. Law and Med advisors who say sure aim for Yale or Harvard we send multiple students to those& similar every year here is what it takes.
Upperclassmen abound who have done competitive internships or research during the semester or summer and are eager to help younger students.
It has been worth every single nickel and we will encourage the third to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my field, all top spots are filled by Ivy grads. It’s going to greatly depend on what field you are in. Most it doesn’t matter, a few select fields it really matters. Stem it doesn’t matter.

Law: it matters.

Only the top few law firms exclude non-Ivy grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

Need blind is just about admissions. It doesn’t make money appear out of the ether to pay the bill.

And it’s not just about whether you technically can pay. It’s also about whether you should. For example, DC has a brilliant friend currently deciding between an Ivy ($30k of need-based aid per year) and our flagship (merit-based full ride). Kid is leaning toward the flagship. Because in this economy, who commits to paying ~$280k over four years when you can attend a similarly well-known school for free?

At an ivy or peer school you pay for the experience and connections and peer group that pushes each other to do their best. When you have a kid at one (or more) and you compare it to the experience of the top instate schools, it is very different. Internships after sophomore year are the norm at an ivy, rare elsewhere. Professors who care and reach out to contacts at other schools to help find summer opportunities is also the norm. Law and Med advisors who say sure aim for Yale or Harvard we send multiple students to those& similar every year here is what it takes.
Upperclassmen abound who have done competitive internships or research during the semester or summer and are eager to help younger students.
It has been worth every single nickel and we will encourage the third to do the same.

The idea that this stuff doesn’t exist at top publics is completely inaccurate, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

The top schools may be need-blind, but there are also a lot of affluent UMC families who love their state flagship and aren’t hung up on brand name schools. I noticed that at my kid’s non-DMV private. Plenty of academic stars who opted for our excellent in-state publics.

Plenty of those that opted didn’t get into any Ivies/T10s so there’s that too.