Advice for help advising driven teen and “elite” college admission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

Agree with these posts. For many jobs, there’s different paths. For a select professions particular wallstreet, going to the target schools or having connection is the best (often only) path. Problem is most kids don’t even know what those jobs entail unless their parents are in the field, or have connections. Hence odds are stacked against those trying to break in from middle class, or even UMC families.

For some families who have the capital, it’s worth it to get kids the best opportunities bc the world is cutthroat.
No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

there are alternate ways. my funds went to a state school, followed by a top 5 medical school. He and at least 2 classmates skipped residency and went to work for hedge funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

I think it is inconceivable to some on here that a child would not want the absolute highest paying career. Some people want other things out if their career and are fine not being rich. The emphasis on money is kind of disheartening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

I think it is inconceivable to some on here that a child would not want the absolute highest paying career. Some people want other things out if their career and are fine not being rich. The emphasis on money is kind of disheartening.

+1 And those in that crowd are ignoring the fact that the only research (Kruger/Dale) on financial outcomes has shown resoundingly and definitively that there's no life-time income advantage to going to an elite university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

I think it is inconceivable to some on here that a child would not want the absolute highest paying career. Some people want other things out if their career and are fine not being rich. The emphasis on money is kind of disheartening.

+1 And those in that crowd are ignoring the fact that the only research (Kruger/Dale) on financial outcomes has shown resoundingly and definitively that there's no life-time income advantage to going to an elite university.

There is a really interesting Freakanomics podcast on this. They actually have 3 on college admissions that are very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

I think it is inconceivable to some on here that a child would not want the absolute highest paying career. Some people want other things out if their career and are fine not being rich. The emphasis on money is kind of disheartening.

This is DCUM, where a HHI of $500k/year is "lower middle class." Of course posters on here are focused on money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

I think it is inconceivable to some on here that a child would not want the absolute highest paying career. Some people want other things out if their career and are fine not being rich. The emphasis on money is kind of disheartening.

+1 And those in that crowd are ignoring the fact that the only research (Kruger/Dale) on financial outcomes has shown resoundingly and definitively that there's no life-time income advantage to going to an elite university.

+100

OP I promise you it doesn't matter where your kid goes to college. She sounds lovely. Stop the helicopter parenting now before your DD develops mental health issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have Ivy professors in my family. They tell me they don’t want their kids going to an Ivy for undergrad and are pushing the SLACs. They also told me that for graduate admissions, they really like kids from SLACs because they know they were well-educated. Just a data point but I think it is interesting.

I can totally see this. I'm an Ivy grad and I'm encouraging my DC to look at SLACs. She has found several SLACs that she loves and I'm so impressed with what I see. I think she'll get a better education at a SLAC than an Ivy.

I agree, but I still think that an Ivy is better for most students than a SLACs (save for maybe Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley). College is not so much for the education that you get as much as it is for the connections you make and the internships/job opportunities you get after -- and that's much better at, say, Princeton than at Grinnell or Vassar.

Sure, you think that. But a lot of people who know the Ivies better than you — Ivy professors — disagree with you. You’ve bought the marketing entirely but don’t understand the reality.

No, I understand the reality fairly well. A Princeton degree will open up doors in corporate America that a Grinnell degree will not. Full stop.

Most people in HR or admissions will disagree with this. Full Stop.

I'm not the person to whom you replied, but it doesn't really matter what the "people in HR" say. There are huge difference between the OCR opportunities available at Princeton and the OCR opportunities at a relatively no-name midwestern school like Grinnell.

What is OCR?

OCR stands for "on-campus recruiting" -- high profile companies visit target schools to hire entry-level employees. It's generally the only way to break into certain industries: finance and consulting, namely.

There may be a limited number of companies who hire primarily from OCR, but it's not by any stretch of the imagination the only way to get into ANY industry.

But for the top tier companies it’s the only way to get in, absent any family connections.

There is always a way in. I lateralled as a third year associate from a crappy small firm to a white shoe law firm (without a book of business) and had offers from 2 other large firms. I even went to a mid-tier law school. There are many paths. You just have to make it happen.

By far the most sought after jobs in the finance world are those on the buy side (hedge funds, venture capital, private equity), and generally the only way to get hired in any of these fields is to do one of the two main "tracked" jobs (investment banking or management consulting) for a couple years right out of college.

I don’t see anything in the OP that suggests her DD is interested in finance. OP, this is why your child’s interests matter. Different schools are going to be better for different things.

I think it is inconceivable to some on here that a child would not want the absolute highest paying career. Some people want other things out if their career and are fine not being rich. The emphasis on money is kind of disheartening.

+1 And those in that crowd are ignoring the fact that the only research (Kruger/Dale) on financial outcomes has shown resoundingly and definitively that there's no life-time income advantage to going to an elite university.

There is a really interesting Freakanomics podcast on this. They actually have 3 on college admissions that are very interesting.

+100

OP I promise you it doesn't matter where your kid goes to college. She sounds lovely. Stop the helicopter parenting now before your DD develops mental health issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does your DD want? Seems more like this is your dream. I would focus on what she wants once she starts visiting colleges.

+100

"Getting into an Ivy" is never a good goal to have. Goals like "becoming a doctor," "becoming a software engineer," "being a writer," or "working to solve climate change/COVID/HIV" are all good goals to have. But aiming for the Ivies with no idea of what you want post-grad is a recipe for disaster -- and frankly, a recipe I see too many kids in this area fall into.

There are just many on DCUM obsessed with getting their child into an Ivy without any thought whatsoever as to the best fit for their child. They would probably sell their mother to get their child into any Ivy if they could. Its kind of pathetic given that there are so many great colleges that are better than the Ivies depending on the child and what he or she wants to study.

Really? I don't see that here. If anything, I see way too much praise for mediocre LACs that have "a way better undergrad experience than a place like Harvard!"

Harvard has a horrible undergrad experience. Ask me how I know.

I'm not sure I'd say it was "horrible," but I'd agree that you do get a better undergrad experience at pretty much all of its peer schools.

Columbia is much worse.

Columbia isn't a peer school to Harvard though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does your DD want? Seems more like this is your dream. I would focus on what she wants once she starts visiting colleges.

+100

"Getting into an Ivy" is never a good goal to have. Goals like "becoming a doctor," "becoming a software engineer," "being a writer," or "working to solve climate change/COVID/HIV" are all good goals to have. But aiming for the Ivies with no idea of what you want post-grad is a recipe for disaster -- and frankly, a recipe I see too many kids in this area fall into.

There are just many on DCUM obsessed with getting their child into an Ivy without any thought whatsoever as to the best fit for their child. They would probably sell their mother to get their child into any Ivy if they could. Its kind of pathetic given that there are so many great colleges that are better than the Ivies depending on the child and what he or she wants to study.

Really? I don't see that here. If anything, I see way too much praise for mediocre LACs that have "a way better undergrad experience than a place like Harvard!"

Harvard has a horrible undergrad experience. Ask me how I know.

I'm not sure I'd say it was "horrible," but I'd agree that you do get a better undergrad experience at pretty much all of its peer schools.

Columbia is much worse.

Columbia isn't a peer school to Harvard though.

This. It's more like an Ivy reject school on the level of, say, Emory or USC.