What’s the point of going to a top school if you end up in the same place as someone who didn’t

[Anonymous]

My spouse and I both went to a top ten school and while we both really valued our educations we both agree the costs have spiraled out of control. I won't deny some of the connections I made were great, but I've participated in mentoring college kids in my own job and helped out kids from a variety of schools.

I don't think it boils down to just "what job are you in now" as I did meet my spouse in college. But when weighing it as a financial return, especially when the debt can be crushing (I was lucky enough to get financial aid) I just can't justify it as an investment. Not when we live in a state with good state schools.

My eldest kid is in elementary school so fortunately this decision isn't pressing (and yes, I'm saving money). But given tuition has doubled at my college since I graduated I don't know what the next decade will bring. We definitely are not setting the expectation that our kids attend the same school we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

If they have to work that hard then they should not be doing it and it is not going to be a good fit on the off chance it works.
One of mine went to a private t15 and the other to a T10ivy. Both will graduate with above 3.90 if all holds, prelaw for one and engineering for the other. They took the most difficult courses their HS offered, as the school advisors recommendedthem to do, as they were among the top students. ECs including arts, athletics and volunteering were chosen by them. They still managed to sleep and get top grades: they did not need to put as many hours in as others. Some of the few unhooked kids similar to them also got into T20 and up, some did not . The ones who “killed themselves” ie felt overwhelmed by 10th did not go on to top schools. Stop pushing your kid, if they were ready for ivy+ they would not find it extremely difficult to balance it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a school with a 96% admit rate. I have a person on my team that went to Harvard. Bet their parents kick themselves daily.

There are graduates from every school who choose regular careers that do not have easier paths depending on undergraduate school. There are many other careers where the eventual kob is filled with predominantly ivy/plus or the top few publics. Top law schools and med schools and top f the field phDs have a large over representation of elite privates and top publics. Top jobs on wall street are the same, and top consulting is as well. It’s life. But if one wants all doors open to them they need an elite school.

[Anonymous]

Because anecdote ≠ data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Bruh there isn’t an award for most-overwritten, masturbatory drivel; not sure why you’re gunning for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

This is the most embarrassing, striver-y comment I’ve ever read on this site, which is quite the accomplishment. Well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to depend on what you want to study and your value system.

I’m in medicine and literally does not matter what school. Many colleagues who went to Ivy for undergrad didn’t like their experience. Maybe ivy is good for careers PP posted- consulting, banking, PE, Wall Street)

For my super high stats kid, I still stress fit and vibe and opportunities for their interests.
For my above avg kid, I won’t make them kill themselves in HS. This is life too. Life is not just in the future.

This is the best advice both on who benefits from ivy schools and how to parent related to college choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

This is the most embarrassing, striver-y comment I’ve ever read on this site, which is quite the accomplishment. Well done.

Actually, this entire thread is a good reminder of how much this forum is filled with insecure social climbers and desperate immigrant strivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your alumni network is different. Your potential pool of SOs/life partners is different. Your enjoyment of the learning may be different.

I never understand this comment. The median age for college educated people to get married these days is 30 (and even higher among those with advanced degrees). The odds these days that you are meeting a life partner in college are low.

I met my BigLaw ex-husband in college.

Presumably you did not meet a statistical reasoning class in college though.

[Anonymous]

What's the point of living if you will end up dead anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

This is the most embarrassing, striver-y comment I’ve ever read on this site, which is quite the accomplishment. Well done.

Actually, this entire thread is a good reminder of how much this forum is filled with insecure social climbers and desperate immigrant strivers.

Wow what a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Why go to a Michelin 5 Star restaurant when you can get your dinner for much less at McDonald’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

The above does not appear to have been written by a well educated individual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to depend on what you want to study and your value system.

I’m in medicine and literally does not matter what school. Many colleagues who went to Ivy for undergrad didn’t like their experience. Maybe ivy is good for careers PP posted- consulting, banking, PE, Wall Street)

For my super high stats kid, I still stress fit and vibe and opportunities for their interests.
For my above avg kid, I won’t make them kill themselves in HS. This is life too. Life is not just in the future.

I will admit that I don’t understand the operations of medicine at all.

My kid was admitted to Georgetown hospital and other than the attending in the ER, not one of the four other doctors that saw my kid even attended a US medical school.

They weren’t Caribbean schools…but European or Indian. None I would even remotely recognize.