This is why it's a crapshoot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I recently worked at a top (HYP) Ivy college as a psychologist in the counseling center. While the kids there are really great students and quite accomplished, I can tell you first-hand that not all of them are that psychologically resilient. I had many, many students on my caseload who struggled with anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harming, and even suicide. Believe me when I tell you that it is often the highest acheivers who are hardest on themselves and most susceptible to a variety of mental health issues.

I'm sure that's the case, but the retention and four-year graduation rates will be much higher at an Ivy than a typical state school or less selective college. So you'll see the stressed-out Ivy grad in your college counseling center, but the people who are less resilient and motivated at other schools will just drop out and the counselors won't witness their struggles back home.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Ivy students usually come from much higher socioeconomic backgrounds than someone at good old Indiana University. And as many students drop out because of money woes, of course the Ivy graduation rates will be higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college counselor at our private calls HYP, MIT, Stanford "the crazies". He keeps telling our kids that they can get an equally great (likely better) education at a hundred schools, none of which is as selective as the top 10.

What makes these top 10 schools "better" is nothing. What makes them hard to get into is popularity and perception. Even if your kid gets selected to go to one of these schools, it's like he won a lottery, not a measure of his innate value or superiority to those poor saps who were not so lucky.

Not true at all! Though I'm sure the thought helps you feel better about not being HYPMS material.

The education one receives at an ivy is indeed unique and much more challenging than what you'd receive anywhere else. There's a reason the atmosphere is often competitive and stressful.

And let's not talk about the level of intellect in the room that challenges your way of thinking and causes you to think deeply and more critically. The "Crazies" give you access to resources and opportunities you will find in few other places. And let's not talk about the networking.

Yes, you can get a good education and many, many other schools outside of the "Crazies" but to try to say there is no difference is ridiculous.

I wish this were true. But it isn't. My husband and/or I have been faculty at a) a #1 school, b) a #8 school and c) a #20 school. They are really, really different in terms of education and networking opportunities, and in the way that you'd expect. It's not worth going nuts over, but honestly, it's not all branding. It's just not. That said, the good kids at all of these schools (as you'd expect) are phenomenal and the worst kids are disasters. They all have different characters that definitely don't make them for everyone. But they just not alike. Not at all.

OK, we know that if Obama had never transferred to Columbia or if Bush 43 went to UMass, neither would have been president. But how come every place I have ever worked, they hire people from a wide range of schools and nobody's particular graduates stand out. You cannot sit in a conference room and think, "wow the Harvard grad is so much smarter than the UVA person"? I understand Yale attracting different students than Rutgers, but at some level the school can't matter that much.

I didn't say the grads were totally different. But the education and opportunities are different. At the top schools you learn from the people who are truly making things happen. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it means that those people are too busy to create a presentable class.

Your classmates and perception also matter. The students at the top 20 school were totally clueless about how to, say, work at a hedge fund. At the #1 school, there was a pipeline. At the #1 school you meet tons of kids with CEO parents, cabinet members, etc. This is great networking, and my brother, for example, has totally used this in his career as an executive. At the #20 school there aren't too many such students (though they do exist).

That isn't to say that things can't even out later and it's definitely not true that non #1 school students are doomed for life. Case in point, DH went to a #20 school for undergrad (and to some extent for grad). I went to a #1 school. DH is more successful than I am.

But it is just not true that going to the #1 school or the #20 gives you the same experience. All things being equal if you have the choice you need to look at what the school will do for you (and how much it will put you in debt). And you need to consider the intangibles that #1 schools often offer.

But a #20 school is a Duke or Notre Dame. C'mon. Are you telling me those schools don't have top performing graduates? I will stand by what I said earlier. I have been in conferences rooms/projects with MBA graduates from Harvard/Yale/NYU/Michigan/Purdue/SUNY Buffalo/Duke/Columbia and there is no way you could tell these people apart and outside of the Harvard people having a "halo", nobody got promoted just because of the school they attended. I can understand the Yale guy had more opportunities and rubbed shoulders with more sons of titans than the SUNY Buffalo person, but you still have to perform at work and have people skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college counselor at our private calls HYP, MIT, Stanford "the crazies". He keeps telling our kids that they can get an equally great (likely better) education at a hundred schools, none of which is as selective as the top 10.

What makes these top 10 schools "better" is nothing. What makes them hard to get into is popularity and perception. Even if your kid gets selected to go to one of these schools, it's like he won a lottery, not a measure of his innate value or superiority to those poor saps who were not so lucky.

Not true at all! Though I'm sure the thought helps you feel better about not being HYPMS material.

The education one receives at an ivy is indeed unique and much more challenging than what you'd receive anywhere else. There's a reason the atmosphere is often competitive and stressful.

And let's not talk about the level of intellect in the room that challenges your way of thinking and causes you to think deeply and more critically. The "Crazies" give you access to resources and opportunities you will find in few other places. And let's not talk about the networking.

Yes, you can get a good education and many, many other schools outside of the "Crazies" but to try to say there is no difference is ridiculous.

I wish this were true. But it isn't. My husband and/or I have been faculty at a) a #1 school, b) a #8 school and c) a #20 school. They are really, really different in terms of education and networking opportunities, and in the way that you'd expect. It's not worth going nuts over, but honestly, it's not all branding. It's just not. That said, the good kids at all of these schools (as you'd expect) are phenomenal and the worst kids are disasters. They all have different characters that definitely don't make them for everyone. But they just not alike. Not at all.

OK, we know that if Obama had never transferred to Columbia or if Bush 43 went to UMass, neither would have been president. But how come every place I have ever worked, they hire people from a wide range of schools and nobody's particular graduates stand out. You cannot sit in a conference room and think, "wow the Harvard grad is so much smarter than the UVA person"? I understand Yale attracting different students than Rutgers, but at some level the school can't matter that much.

I didn't say the grads were totally different. But the education and opportunities are different. At the top schools you learn from the people who are truly making things happen. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it means that those people are too busy to create a presentable class.

Your classmates and perception also matter. The students at the top 20 school were totally clueless about how to, say, work at a hedge fund. At the #1 school, there was a pipeline. At the #1 school you meet tons of kids with CEO parents, cabinet members, etc. This is great networking, and my brother, for example, has totally used this in his career as an executive. At the #20 school there aren't too many such students (though they do exist).

That isn't to say that things can't even out later and it's definitely not true that non #1 school students are doomed for life. Case in point, DH went to a #20 school for undergrad (and to some extent for grad). I went to a #1 school. DH is more successful than I am.

But it is just not true that going to the #1 school or the #20 gives you the same experience. All things being equal if you have the choice you need to look at what the school will do for you (and how much it will put you in debt). And you need to consider the intangibles that #1 schools often offer.

But a #20 school is a Duke or Notre Dame. C'mon. Are you telling me those schools don't have top performing graduates? I will stand by what I said earlier. I have been in conferences rooms/projects with MBA graduates from Harvard/Yale/NYU/Michigan/Purdue/SUNY Buffalo/Duke/Columbia and there is no way you could tell these people apart and outside of the Harvard people having a "halo", nobody got promoted just because of the school they attended. I can understand the Yale guy had more opportunities and rubbed shoulders with more sons of titans than the SUNY Buffalo person, but you still have to perform at work and have people skills.

No, I did not claim that. Read what I said. Your observations are totally consistent with mine.

Also, while it doesn't matter to the argument, I was specifically talking about undergrad, not MBAs. That is what this thread is about anyhow, and what the NYT article was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college counselor at our private calls HYP, MIT, Stanford "the crazies". He keeps telling our kids that they can get an equally great (likely better) education at a hundred schools, none of which is as selective as the top 10.

What makes these top 10 schools "better" is nothing. What makes them hard to get into is popularity and perception. Even if your kid gets selected to go to one of these schools, it's like he won a lottery, not a measure of his innate value or superiority to those poor saps who were not so lucky.

Not true at all! Though I'm sure the thought helps you feel better about not being HYPMS material.

The education one receives at an ivy is indeed unique and much more challenging than what you'd receive anywhere else. There's a reason the atmosphere is often competitive and stressful.

And let's not talk about the level of intellect in the room that challenges your way of thinking and causes you to think deeply and more critically. The "Crazies" give you access to resources and opportunities you will find in few other places. And let's not talk about the networking.

Yes, you can get a good education and many, many other schools outside of the "Crazies" but to try to say there is no difference is ridiculous.

I wish this were true. But it isn't. My husband and/or I have been faculty at a) a #1 school, b) a #8 school and c) a #20 school. They are really, really different in terms of education and networking opportunities, and in the way that you'd expect. It's not worth going nuts over, but honestly, it's not all branding. It's just not. That said, the good kids at all of these schools (as you'd expect) are phenomenal and the worst kids are disasters. They all have different characters that definitely don't make them for everyone. But they just not alike. Not at all.

OK, we know that if Obama had never transferred to Columbia or if Bush 43 went to UMass, neither would have been president. But how come every place I have ever worked, they hire people from a wide range of schools and nobody's particular graduates stand out. You cannot sit in a conference room and think, "wow the Harvard grad is so much smarter than the UVA person"? I understand Yale attracting different students than Rutgers, but at some level the school can't matter that much.

I didn't say the grads were totally different. But the education and opportunities are different. At the top schools you learn from the people who are truly making things happen. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it means that those people are too busy to create a presentable class.

Your classmates and perception also matter. The students at the top 20 school were totally clueless about how to, say, work at a hedge fund. At the #1 school, there was a pipeline. At the #1 school you meet tons of kids with CEO parents, cabinet members, etc. This is great networking, and my brother, for example, has totally used this in his career as an executive. At the #20 school there aren't too many such students (though they do exist).

That isn't to say that things can't even out later and it's definitely not true that non #1 school students are doomed for life. Case in point, DH went to a #20 school for undergrad (and to some extent for grad). I went to a #1 school. DH is more successful than I am.

But it is just not true that going to the #1 school or the #20 gives you the same experience. All things being equal if you have the choice you need to look at what the school will do for you (and how much it will put you in debt). And you need to consider the intangibles that #1 schools often offer.

IME this holds true for law schools. I went to Harvard, but spend my last semester at GW because my then-fiancee, now husband, was a year ahead of me and was already here clerking. Sure, there are many successful lawyers who graduated from GW, and there are some real doozies who graduated from Harvard, but I observed a marked difference between the two schools in terms of the intellectual climate. Class discussion was generally speaking at a much less nuanced and thoughtful level at GW than at Harvard. This was true even though the profs I encountered at GW were excellent. Again I'm not saying that the GW students might not have been capable of more, nor am I saying that every moment at Harvard was scintillating, but, on balance, there was a big difference.

[Anonymous]

More IVY ENVY and people feeling the need to justify their less than impressive diplomas.

Listen, if you truly believe in the value of your education and educational experience, you wouldn't need to defend it.

You'll never see an Ivy grad trying to persuade others that their education was better, no different, etc.

If nothing else, an ivy grad is more confident which in and of itself would make that person the most appealing in the room.

And we've all had different experiences, but sadly in a room of mixed educational backgrounds, the ivy leaguer does stand out as being the smartest in the room. Or, he's holding back a bit as to not intimidate others. But I'll guarantee he won't be the dud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More IVY ENVY and people feeling the need to justify their less than impressive diplomas.

Listen, if you truly believe in the value of your education and educational experience, you wouldn't need to defend it.

You'll never see an Ivy grad trying to persuade others that their education was better, no different, etc.

If nothing else, an ivy grad is more confident which in and of itself would make that person the most appealing in the room.

And we've all had different experiences, but sadly in a room of mixed educational backgrounds, the ivy leaguer does stand out as being the smartest in the room. Or, he's holding back a bit as to not intimidate others. But I'll guarantee he won't be the dud.

I agree. Went to a third tier undergrad, very strong MBA program. People often think that I have an Ivy background when they meet me. This is because I am a vapid social climber who has practiced upper middle class WASP behavior patterns for years. But that's beside the point. I do agree that the ivy grad does stand out - the people who got is into Vietnam and Iraq, wrecked the financial system, sold out US workers in the name of globalization. Yeah, they are the best and brightest. Not a dud in the room.

[Anonymous]

Leaving aside the Ivy Envy stuff....

One thing top colleges do is provide a "credential" or "signal" to prospective employers. Th degree tells prospective employers that this is a kid who worked hard enough, and had the smarts, to get into a college that takes 6-10% of applicants. Also, that this kid worked hard enough, and had the smarts, to succeed among a highly competitive peer group at the college.

At least within the first 5 years of graduation, this "credentialling" or "signalling" is useful to employers. This in no way suggests that similarly hard-working and smart kids don't exist in 2nd or 3rd-tier colleges, just that the pool of such kids is probably larger at the top colleges, which reduces the employer's risk.