Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"

[Anonymous]

I'm very willing to believe that whether you went to a "Tier 1" (Penn) or "Tier 3" (Penn State) doesn't matter very much. But I'd be very surprised to learn that whether you go to a Tier 1-3 or a Tier 4 (Slippery Rock) doesn't matter very much.

I couldn't find the full Dale/Krueger paper online to see if they addressed this.

In my book, as an Ivy grad, I consider schools like Cal to be peer institutions. In fact, I'd probably rank Cal over one or two of the "lesser Ivies". So I'm a little skeptical over the differentiators used in these papers.

[Anonymous]

Someone probably made this point already, I haven't read the whole thread. But this lumps tier 1-3 schools together. That means that whether you go to Yale or Michigan or Haverford, you probably aren't seeing a large difference in earnings if you go to a top tier graduate program compared to someone who went to Middle Tennessee State. This is irrelevant for the squabbling that mostly happens on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm very willing to believe that whether you went to a "Tier 1" (Penn) or "Tier 3" (Penn State) doesn't matter very much. But I'd be very surprised to learn that whether you go to a Tier 1-3 or a Tier 4 (Slippery Rock) doesn't matter very much.

I couldn't find the full Dale/Krueger paper online to see if they addressed this.

In my book, as an Ivy grad, I consider schools like Cal to be peer institutions. In fact, I'd probably rank Cal over one or two of the "lesser Ivies". So I'm a little skeptical over the differentiators used in these papers.

Dale/Kruger paper:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17159

[Anonymous]

"“Even applying to an [elite college], even if you get rejected, says a lot about you."

It obviously "says" you're going to be within the top quartile at whatever tier 2 or 3 school you end up at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

What do you expect from a PHD professor, he has spend his whole life in School.

I just hear PHD and I think afraid of the real world, add professor to it and you get afraid to leave school.

1. I am not a "he." Nice stereotype just because I am an engineer. Remember this board is at least 50% women.
2. I have not spent (note my ability to conjugate verbs and use proper grammar) my whole life in school. I actually started one company previously, have worked several years in industry and am now in the initial stages of starting another company while still working as a professor. Engineering research in academia is where the products you use -- things like GPS, pacemakers, artificial organs, DNA sequencing and numerous others -- are born. I'm a professional inventor and I work as a professor because that is where research is done now. Bell Labs and other places where industrial research to create the technologies (and jobs) of tomorrow are dead. If research is done outside of academia these days it's probably at a defense contractor where the benefit will only exist in newer fancier weapons. I and others are one major reason your kids are dying to get into these "elite" schools -- to have a chance to see that process in action.

While I fully agree my experience is not relevant to everyone and are specific to me and my profession, your criticisms are not in any way the reason why. And you should really be ashamed of your sexist assumptions.

1. I am also an engineer but one that broke out from behind the computer and excells with vision, people, transformation. You look back at the past and try to understand I see the future. I figured you were a man due to your terrible mansplaining.
2. Note your lack of social skills and your ability to go back to your nose in a book. Yes, I get it, you invented the Internet. Blah, blah, blah. Take an improv class you are a typical engineer, which is why of the 250 engineers that work for me 7 are allowed to talk to real humans.

You are clueless, read the research done my google about hiring from non elite colleges. You being impressed with yourself has cause you not to see the value in others. It's sad really,but I blame your mom, it's always the moms fault. You don't even get that joke because you lack people skills.

Are you drunk? This post is the most bizarre and incoherent I have read on DCUM of late. And that is saying something!

+1

I was just about to post the same exact thing. Either drunk or just suffered a serious brain injury? If the latter, please seek medical assistance.

Another female engineer. I also agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very willing to believe that whether you went to a "Tier 1" (Penn) or "Tier 3" (Penn State) doesn't matter very much. But I'd be very surprised to learn that whether you go to a Tier 1-3 or a Tier 4 (Slippery Rock) doesn't matter very much.

I couldn't find the full Dale/Krueger paper online to see if they addressed this.

In my book, as an Ivy grad, I consider schools like Cal to be peer institutions. In fact, I'd probably rank Cal over one or two of the "lesser Ivies". So I'm a little skeptical over the differentiators used in these papers.

Dale/Kruger paper:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17159

Thank you! 27 schools, most of them Tiers 1-3. Makes it hard to draw a firm conclusion about my Penn/Penn State vs. Slippery Rock question.

[Anonymous]

Summary: if you think it makes a big difference if you go to Harvard vs. Haverford, you're one kind of idiot. If you think it makes no difference if you go to Harvard (or Haverford) vs. JMU, you're another kind of idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Summary: if you think it makes a big difference if you go to Harvard vs. Haverford, you're one kind of idiot. If you think it makes no difference if you go to Harvard (or Haverford) vs. JMU, you're another kind of idiot.

You missed if you think making $180K vs $135K is a big difference you are even a bigger kind of idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary: if you think it makes a big difference if you go to Harvard vs. Haverford, you're one kind of idiot. If you think it makes no difference if you go to Harvard (or Haverford) vs. JMU, you're another kind of idiot.

You missed if you think making $180K vs $135K is a big difference you are even a bigger kind of idiot.

The study showed that tiers 1-3 who went to a tier 1 school for phd had the same earnings. The big difference occurred with the tier 4 schools.

[Anonymous]

So you do know that wealth and connections grant access to "tier 1" schools. Wealth and connections also factor in how well you do after school. If you enter school a billionaire, you most likely will leave school with a very high income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Summary: if you think it makes a big difference if you go to Harvard vs. Haverford, you're one kind of idiot. If you think it makes no difference if you go to Harvard (or Haverford) vs. JMU, you're another kind of idiot.

Many employers wouldn't distinguish between Haverford and JMU when sorting through resumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As for your main point, it would be interesting to compare top tier undergrad admits who matriculated elsewhere and then attended top tier grad to Tier 1/Tier 1 grads. That would tease apart effect and selection.

This study has been done:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/?_r=0

That study only looks at incomes as a function of undergraduate degree prestige. My proposal was to compare the incomes of the portion of those two groups who attend tier 1 grad schools, especially MBAs and lawyers. That's where the rubber hits the road in terms of income differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary: if you think it makes a big difference if you go to Harvard vs. Haverford, you're one kind of idiot. If you think it makes no difference if you go to Harvard (or Haverford) vs. JMU, you're another kind of idiot.

You missed if you think making $180K vs $135K is a big difference you are even a bigger kind of idiot.

50 grand a year over a 40 year career is two million. That's not including interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary: if you think it makes a big difference if you go to Harvard vs. Haverford, you're one kind of idiot. If you think it makes no difference if you go to Harvard (or Haverford) vs. JMU, you're another kind of idiot.

Many employers wouldn't distinguish between Haverford and JMU when sorting through resumes.

That's true, but there are other factors at play than signaling to employers, such as alumni networks, setting earnings/career expectations, "polish" and the quality of the education itself. More studies need to be done.