Does it matter where you attend college anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Management consulting is not interviewing at those schools. Big 4 are generally not recruiting at those schools either. They will accept students from them, generally for it advisory, audit, or assurance, and maybe a couple people in transaction advisory.

They do Interview AT these schools. Do your homework before you speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

I was referencing very specific outcomes to prove that in fact in certain industries or in terms of ease of raising venture capital...it does a ton to facilitate that outcome. For some reason, you just refuse to concede that may be the case.

Yes, those are all strong outcomes...just not the outcomes to which I am referring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad: no
Grad: yes

Case in point: The current CEO of General Electric went to Washington College in Chestertown for his undergrad, then went straight to Harvard Business School.

He’s an ancient white dude

Nowadays HBS wants experience from very specific ranks at specific companies or industries.

Who you calling ancient?

Larry was two years ahead of me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

I was referencing very specific outcomes to prove that in fact in certain industries or in terms of ease of raising venture capital...it does a ton to facilitate that outcome. For some reason, you just refuse to concede that may be the case.

Yes, those are all strong outcomes...just not the outcomes to which I am referring.

Honestly, if you are smart and enterprising enough with the next Google idea, you also have the ability to partner with others who can provide connections (family, college or professional). Get funding from kickstarter etc. Sure you may be at a slight disadvantage when raising money due to no-brand name school but everything can be done!

[Anonymous]

Someone put up a link to where the NASA engineers, astronauts, managers went to school. The list was all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad: no
Grad: yes

Case in point: The current CEO of General Electric went to Washington College in Chestertown for his undergrad, then went straight to Harvard Business School.

The CEO of American Express got his undergrad and MBA from Manhattan College.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs didn't go to grad school, just Hamilton College for a BA.

The CEO of Halliburton went to McNeese State and then Texas A+M for his MBA.

The CEO of UPS went to the University of Wyoming, and then got her MBA at the University of Denver.


Grad school doesn't matter either. It's what the individual brings to the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad: no
Grad: yes

Case in point: The current CEO of General Electric went to Washington College in Chestertown for his undergrad, then went straight to Harvard Business School.

He’s an ancient white dude

Nowadays HBS wants experience from very specific ranks at specific companies or industries.

Who knows if he'd have gotten into HBS today but corporate America isn't obsessed with where you went to school. Look at the degrees of the C-level suites and senior VPs and MDs and presidents of divisions at all the F500s and it is all over the map with way more going to "lesser" schools. If you think the executive leadership in the F500s is dominated by Harvard and Stanford, you're in for a world of surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm, I think it does in terms of "life interestingness" but not necessarily wealth.

Harvard couple I know -- one person founded their own non-profit, one is a acclaimed novelist. MIT couple -- founded a few tech companies (and now are millionaires). Another elite school couple (Naval Academy, which has similar standards) -- another founder of a company, another writer. Stanford friend -- furniture designer who has won awards. Columbia friend works for the NYTimes. Friend from Brown is another serial entrepreneur. Money varies, but all have a lot of freedom to do what they want, and No one has a boring job.

+1 I would say this is a big difference between McKinsey and Capital One as well. Sorry.

NP no offense taken. I used to work at McKinsey and now work at Capital One and much prefer Capital One for the work/life balance. Truly pity those who are still slogging away at 60-hour heavy-travel weeks never spending time with their families.

[Anonymous]

I also think that as people with “elite” school degrees (such as myself) realize that it is getting hard for our super-qualified children to get into the same elite schools, we will open up hiring in our companies to the less traditionally “elite” schools. Which is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Major matters much more
For example UMD CS >> Harvard English

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think that as people with “elite” school degrees (such as myself) realize that it is getting hard for our super-qualified children to get into the same elite schools, we will open up hiring in our companies to the less traditionally “elite” schools. Which is a good thing.

It was never closed. Majority of companies hire from a variety of universities. Where you go matters only a little, what you do there matters 99% more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

I was referencing very specific outcomes to prove that in fact in certain industries or in terms of ease of raising venture capital...it does a ton to facilitate that outcome. For some reason, you just refuse to concede that may be the case.

Yes, those are all strong outcomes...just not the outcomes to which I am referring.

You might want to read Frank Bruni's "Where You Go is not Who You'll Be". On pages132 and 133, he talks with the president of Y Combinator, who says Stanford's proposals have been disappointing, but he's really interested in the University of Waterloo (Canada) and was traveling there for 3 days to meet students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Major matters much more
For example UMD CS >> Harvard English

+1

[Anonymous]

It's all about the alumni network. DMV parents may scoff at places like Alabama or Ole Miss, but they take care of their own. And you think outside of the south it's power may dissipate. The opposite is true in my view. The desire of an alum intensifies even more the farther out of the south you are. You want to apply to a bank in NY that happens to have a grad there, they will go out of their way to get you hired.