Do Prestigious Schools Matter for Future Success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my field, when someone from an Ivy is concerned, they succeed because they think they can do anything and have a load of self-confidence. The self-confidence translates into developing their skills and gaining more experience than someone who might let self-doubt slow them down.

They also need emotional intelligence, ability to network, financial security, and at least some charisma.

And a top student at any school can do well if they have self-confidence.

I’ve seen top students at schools flounder due to lack of emotional intelligence or charisma.

This frankly just sounds like allowing people with high EQ to manipulate employers into a lazy employee. Sweet talk sounds nice but results in inaction. These are the “leaders” on campus who everyone visibly sees do nothing, but they talk a large game.

[Anonymous]

^ athletes at Ivies are shown to make $220k more than non-athletes.

Forbes magazine

Confidence? Or discipline? Or network?

My kid got in on academics and joined Varsity sophomore year. Goals and works very hard for them. I do think a lot of those characteristics matter.

Women CEOs are predominantly former college athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a perspective from a specific field: your undergraduate school does not matter very much (or maybe even at all) for private practice at even the most prestigious law firms. Your performance in undergrad and then your law school DO matter, very very much. But not your undergrad school. The top law schools pull from such a wide range of undergrads, but a narrower range of law schools.

Typo above: Top law FIRMS pull from a wide range of undergrads and a narrower range of law schools.

In almost every area, your terminal degree is the one that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ athletes at Ivies are shown to make $220k more than non-athletes.

Forbes magazine

Confidence? Or discipline? Or network?

My kid got in on academics and joined Varsity sophomore year. Goals and works very hard for them. I do think a lot of those characteristics matter.

Women CEOs are predominantly former college athletes.

Athletes at Ivies are likely to come from wealthier families.
Athletes at Ivies are much more likely to be white.
All else being equal, these two factors alone could account for at least that much of a difference in lifetime earnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ athletes at Ivies are shown to make $220k more than non-athletes.

Forbes magazine

Confidence? Or discipline? Or network?

My kid got in on academics and joined Varsity sophomore year. Goals and works very hard for them. I do think a lot of those characteristics matter.

Women CEOs are predominantly former college athletes.

Athletes at Ivies are likely to come from wealthier families.
Athletes at Ivies are much more likely to be white.
All else being equal, these two factors alone could account for at least that much of a difference in lifetime earnings.

WRONG !!!

Have you looked at the Harvard men's golf roster? 75% of them are Asians, and very likely WEALTHY. The Harvard women's golf roster is 85% Asians, very likely wealthy.

[Anonymous]

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my field, when someone from an Ivy is concerned, they succeed because they think they can do anything and have a load of self-confidence. The self-confidence translates into developing their skills and gaining more experience than someone who might let self-doubt slow them down.

They also need emotional intelligence, ability to network, financial security, and at least some charisma.

And a top student at any school can do well if they have self-confidence.

I’ve seen top students at schools flounder due to lack of emotional intelligence or charisma.

This frankly just sounds like allowing people with high EQ to manipulate employers into a lazy employee. Sweet talk sounds nice but results in inaction. These are the “leaders” on campus who everyone visibly sees do nothing, but they talk a large game.

Well, a lot of “management” does very little, does their work poorly, or can’t lead or get along with people. That’s why organizations hire executive coaches at $15-25k a pop to help fix these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige is a great substitute for talent. Ask me how I know

Sure. But prestige + talent is killer. Those who get in RD unhooked 3% acceptance rates

The question was about future success.

That's what I'm talking about. The kids that are naturally very smart AND hard workers. They got in on their own moxy and hard work---not a hook, not early, etc. Those types have a lot of future success as they keep working.

Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Clinton, Obama where prestige met talent. Didn't come from privilege. Attended prestigious university, worked hard.

Most of the names on your list have a degree from Harvard

Clinton and Obama have a ton of charisma and self-confidence and built a large network even before becoming POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Attending the top law school, I noticed that there were lots of students who had come from all sorts of colleges and universities. Just graduating from HYPS doesn't get you that far unless you work hard and are talented.

Yup!! And many who attend HYPS would have had similar connections thru parents, relatives and family friends no matter where they went to college. Otherwise, it's 99% about what you do while you are at college and beyond.

And for someone who says "well Harvard Law is a much higher percentage of students from T25 undergrads", well that's simply because those are the kids who grow up with wealth and thinking, I'm going to Harvard Law. Your average kid at U Minnesota or U South Dakota is thinking "what law school can I attend that I won't be in debt up to my eyeballs until I'm 40", not thinking Harvard Law.

And those who do get into Harvard Law from Non-Elite schools were most likely kids with a resume for Elite undergrad but who chose to attend elsewhere. Or a smart kid who excelled in college (a bit more than in HS). But the average Joe is thinking about a local state Law School that is more affordable, and might allow them to live at home while attending

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Title says it, but if I hear things like "My kid didn't go to an ivy and he turned out fine, he went to Duke undergrad and Stanford for an MBA." OBVIOUSLY that doesn't count if you're including two very prestigious schools that are better than most of the ivy league. I'm talking about going to regular schools (not top privates or flagship state schools) and having a great career. Thanks!

It depends on what they want to do. If they want to be a professor at Harvard, it probably matters, but if they simply want a high paying joe job i.e. doctor, lawyer or even tech leadership. Most colleges will be fine.

If you want to be a prof at Harvard, you go to a good undergrad, one where you get the opportunity to shine, do research/work with professors, so you can have a 3.9+ and get excellent recommendations to attend a T25 graduate school in your field. Then the rest is on how hard you work and the visibility of your research in grad school.

[Anonymous]

Drive and grit are more likely to lead to success in almost any field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attending the top law school, I noticed that there were lots of students who had come from all sorts of colleges and universities. Just graduating from HYPS doesn't get you that far unless you work hard and are talented.

Yup!! And many who attend HYPS would have had similar connections thru parents, relatives and family friends no matter where they went to college. Otherwise, it's 99% about what you do while you are at college and beyond.

And for someone who says "well Harvard Law is a much higher percentage of students from T25 undergrads", well that's simply because those are the kids who grow up with wealth and thinking, I'm going to Harvard Law. Your average kid at U Minnesota or U South Dakota is thinking "what law school can I attend that I won't be in debt up to my eyeballs until I'm 40", not thinking Harvard Law.

And those who do get into Harvard Law from Non-Elite schools were most likely kids with a resume for Elite undergrad but who chose to attend elsewhere. Or a smart kid who excelled in college (a bit more than in HS). But the average Joe is thinking about a local state Law School that is more affordable, and might allow them to live at home while attending

This made me laugh because I vividly remember the Chair of my philosophy department telling me I needed to apply to Harvard Law (decades ago), and I was like, "Are you kidding? The application fee is $75!!!" I literally didn't have an extra $75 to burn on a gamble.

[Anonymous]

No, but if you’re really into being the biggest earner or in a well known field with power (politics/law) yes. There’s various millionaires from random schools, but it’s so much easier with Harvard behind your name. Becoming a politician or Supreme Court Justice is obviously obscenely rare, and those types of special people tend to go to ivies. If you are with the rest of (99.9% of society), it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ athletes at Ivies are shown to make $220k more than non-athletes.

Forbes magazine

Confidence? Or discipline? Or network?

My kid got in on academics and joined Varsity sophomore year. Goals and works very hard for them. I do think a lot of those characteristics matter.

Women CEOs are predominantly former college athletes.

Athletes at Ivies are likely to come from wealthier families.
Athletes at Ivies are much more likely to be white.
All else being equal, these two factors alone could account for at least that much of a difference in lifetime earnings.

WRONG !!!

Have you looked at the Harvard men's golf roster? 75% of them are Asians, and very likely WEALTHY. The Harvard women's golf roster is 85% Asians, very likely wealthy.

You need to look at all athletes. And Asians also earn more than average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prestige is a great substitute for talent. Ask me how I know

Sure. But prestige + talent is killer. Those who get in RD unhooked 3% acceptance rates

The question was about future success.

That's what I'm talking about. The kids that are naturally very smart AND hard workers. They got in on their own moxy and hard work---not a hook, not early, etc. Those types have a lot of future success as they keep working.

Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Clinton, Obama where prestige met talent. Didn't come from privilege. Attended prestigious university, worked hard.

Gates, Zuckerberg and Obama all went to top private schools. Obama got into Occidental and later transferred to Columbia. Bezos went to River Oaks school for middle school which again is in an expensive part of Houston. So they all came from privilege.

Clinton went to Georgetown. Not one person on here from a non-target school