Why are "elite schools" still a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Employers that focus mainly on hiring Ivy League grads, not just great students, are hoping to mine the students’ contact lists. The real focus of interest is the student’s access to rich people.

There are extremely few employers who do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

Heavily?

Out of the fortune 500 ceos, maybe 10% went to HYPSM, maybe 20% went to IVY+

If you are a lawyer, then your undergrad degree barely matters.
Doctors care where you had your residency more than your medical school, never mind your undergrad.
Tech people seem to care about demonstrated skill and ability a lot more than pedigree.

If I had a choice I would pick HYPSM over JMU but It's not FML if I go to JMU. I just have something to prove after college that I didn't necessarily prove before college when i was 16.

10% going to 8 relatively small schools? That actually seems pretty good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

Heavily?

Out of the fortune 500 ceos, maybe 10% went to HYPSM, maybe 20% went to IVY+

If you are a lawyer, then your undergrad degree barely matters.
Doctors care where you had your residency more than your medical school, never mind your undergrad.
Tech people seem to care about demonstrated skill and ability a lot more than pedigree.

If I had a choice I would pick HYPSM over JMU but It's not FML if I go to JMU. I just have something to prove after college that I didn't necessarily prove before college when i was 16.

10% going to 8 relatively small schools? That actually seems pretty good

It’s disproportional but it hardly meets the definition of “heavily concentrated,” nor does the low absolute percentage allow it to be predictive or causal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

It’s a DC-based organization that you sad strivers would kill to have your kids get a job at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

It’s a DC-based organization that you sad strivers would kill to have your kids get a job at.

So either name it or f**k off. If you aren’t willing to provide any specifics then you just fall into the category of making shit up like 95% of DCUM.

Does it only have two employees? Assuming it has many employees…what’s the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

These schools get a cohort of intelligent, talented, hard working, groomed, wealthy and connected kids and give them good opportunities to work together and take advantage of school's huge endowment and renowned faculty and alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

DP: So are you.

One what? Go look at the Forbes 400 and where they went to school and the concentration in a small group of schools.

Hence, the verifiable successful people.

"So which schools produce the most Forbes 400 members? Altogether, 24% of the college graduates went to Ivy League schools. However, if you count only Ivy League grads who are designated by Forbes as self-made, having earned their fortunes rather than inheriting them, the percentage drops to 14%." - Forbes

"Just over a fifth of Forbes 400 members never graduated from college. Another 243 went to schools that were not Ivies." - also Forbes

If you count fortune 500 CEOs the numbers are even less IVY+ oriented.

IVY+ is pretty important in academia, management consulting, finance (this is where a lot of the Forbes 400 IVY+ folks come from).

Jack Welch (perhaps the best businessman I have ever met) went to Amherst. A great school but probably not up to your standards.

Of course Amherst falls into elite school status. That’s funny.

You do realize the ones that dropped out of college are people like Gates, Zuckerberg, Altman, etc. dropouts of elite schools. Hard to not add them to the category of elite schools…which I guess when you add them into the numbers makes it even more heavily weighted.

[Anonymous]

Some of my immigrant friends went to unknown schools in a third world country and have plenty of Ivy grads working for them. They struggled a lot more but eventually intelligence and hard work started paying off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

It’s a DC-based organization that you sad strivers would kill to have your kids get a job at.

So either name it or f**k off. If you aren’t willing to provide any specifics then you just fall into the category of making shit up like 95% of DCUM.

Does it only have two employees? Assuming it has many employees…what’s the issue?

Oooh we got under the striver’s skin.

It’s one known by its acronym. That narrows down the list to about 10 or so places, and that’s all you’re getting. But it ultimately doesn’t matter. What I described is true at almost every organization. They are filled with people from all sorts of schools, and the people that rise come from all sorts of schools, and no one cares what the name on your diploma is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

It’s a DC-based organization that you sad strivers would kill to have your kids get a job at.

So either name it or f**k off. If you aren’t willing to provide any specifics then you just fall into the category of making shit up like 95% of DCUM.

Does it only have two employees? Assuming it has many employees…what’s the issue?

Oooh we got under the striver’s skin.

It’s one known by its acronym. That narrows down the list to about 10 or so places, and that’s all you’re getting. But it ultimately doesn’t matter. What I described is true at almost every organization. They are filled with people from all sorts of schools, and the people that rise come from all sorts of schools, and no one cares what the name on your diploma is.

Nope we just found another lying DCUM poster.

Now, I believe I told you to f**k off. So, no more from you until you name names. Hard to do when it’s made up.

[Anonymous]

You mean like Military Academies?
It's obvious

[Anonymous]

Elite schools exist because humans are status-obsessed apes. Elite schools are Veblen goods. Everything else is correlation or rationalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

It’s a DC-based organization that you sad strivers would kill to have your kids get a job at.

So either name it or f**k off. If you aren’t willing to provide any specifics then you just fall into the category of making shit up like 95% of DCUM.

Does it only have two employees? Assuming it has many employees…what’s the issue?

Oooh we got under the striver’s skin.

It’s one known by its acronym. That narrows down the list to about 10 or so places, and that’s all you’re getting. But it ultimately doesn’t matter. What I described is true at almost every organization. They are filled with people from all sorts of schools, and the people that rise come from all sorts of schools, and no one cares what the name on your diploma is.

Nope we just found another lying DCUM poster.

Now, I believe I told you to f**k off. So, no more from you until you name names. Hard to do when it’s made up.

Lol imagine believing so hard in your “elite” schools (and being so clueless about the modern workplace) that you don’t know how little advantage these schools confer once you are in the workplace itself. Are you a current student, or just haven’t set foot in an office for many years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elite schools exist because humans are status-obsessed apes. Elite schools are Veblen goods. Everything else is correlation or rationalization.

OK, this sums it up perfectly, we can close this thread now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

It’s a DC-based organization that you sad strivers would kill to have your kids get a job at.

So either name it or f**k off. If you aren’t willing to provide any specifics then you just fall into the category of making shit up like 95% of DCUM.

Does it only have two employees? Assuming it has many employees…what’s the issue?

Oooh we got under the striver’s skin.

It’s one known by its acronym. That narrows down the list to about 10 or so places, and that’s all you’re getting. But it ultimately doesn’t matter. What I described is true at almost every organization. They are filled with people from all sorts of schools, and the people that rise come from all sorts of schools, and no one cares what the name on your diploma is.

Other than Carlyle, there really isn’t any other DC company anyone’s “striver” kids want to work at (outside of BigLaw…but that’s a different animal).

I know people want to work at Marriott and Hilton for the perks, but not high on the list at least for entry level.

So…really not sure wtf you are talking about.