Why Such Snobbery Against State Universities on These Fora?

[Anonymous]

Nobody goes to these schools, they are too crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In order for this to be a remotely interesting statistical exercise, you need to remove all of those who are part of this due to generational wealth. Attending Yale isn't going to get my kid a multi-billion-dollar trust fund no matter what.

Wrong. Most of these guys made their money themselves, did not inherit it from their parents

here are the stats

1 Harvard University Self made percentage is 78%
2 University of Pennsylvania 72%
3 Columbia University 75%
4 New York University 72%
5 Stanford University 76%
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77%
7 University of Chicago 82%
8 Northwestern University 72%
9 Yale University 74%
10 Princeton University 75%

I’m not this poster but I’m interested in data so I went looking for this. It looks like it’s based on a study by the firm Wealth-X as reported in the Atlantic and elsewhere. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-10-colleges-most-likely-to-make-you-a-billionaire-harvard-is-1/273627/

This is a study of “ultra high net worth individuals” and their educational backgrounds. This poster misunderstood the premise. It’s NOT the case that 78% of Harvard students/parents are self-made. It’s that 78% of the ultra-high net worth individuals in their study who went to Harvard were self-made.

Only a tiny percentage of any school’s graduates become ultra high net worth individuals. And according to the study, a vanishingly small (single digit) percentage of them are women. So we’re not comparing whole universities here, just a few alpha males in finance.

The self made percentage did not state what you allege it states. Quite the opposite. In fact the stats were posted to counter the argument that these rich folks got the money from their parents which this stats clearly disproves. They made the money themselves.

The vanishingly small point is irrelevant. Compared to the state schools the privates churn out more wealthy people, which was also disputed here. Those stats were posted to counter that assertion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’re missing, PP, is the number of people at those private schools with generational wealth and connections. You’re not necessarily going to achieve that level of wealth solely from going to those schools. You’d have to exclude people who benefit from generational wealth in order to isolate and measure the impact of going to those schools in future earnings.

Both you and the other poster are missing the point. The point is even if what you say is true, the point is that the wealthy don't go to the state schools with the plebes. Don't you get it? That is precisely my point. But that is moot because you are wrong. Here is the data on the "generational wealth vs self made ratio for some of these schools


1 Harvard University Self made percentage is 78%
2 University of Pennsylvania 72%
3 Columbia University 75%
4 New York University 72%
5 Stanford University 76%
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77%
7 University of Chicago 82%
8 Northwestern University 72%
9 Yale University 74%
10 Princeton University 75%

Most of these folks made their wealth by themselves. I know this runs counter to the leftist class warfare nonsense, but it is what it is

Link?

PP can’t provide a link because no university collects the data necessary to derive those statistics.

You are a moron. A 30 second google search should give you the link. don't be an information welfare queen. Get off your butt and do some work.

NP. DCUM etiquette is to post supporting links. If you can’t bother to link then don’t bother to post.

The poster was rude and insinuated that no such data exists. Such a poster doesn't deserve any courtesy, Even with this I told him how to find the report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the idea of going to a large, public university with the majority of students hailing from one state isn't particularly attractive.

To who? It appears to be attractive to a lot of people. You know, that's how it got to be 'large'.

No, they got large by offering affordable education to state residents not OOS students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the idea of going to a large, public university with the majority of students hailing from one state isn't particularly attractive.

To who? It appears to be attractive to a lot of people. You know, that's how it got to be 'large'.

No, they got large by offering affordable education to state residents not OOS students.

And that isn't attractive? seems to be. Yep that checks out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’re missing, PP, is the number of people at those private schools with generational wealth and connections. You’re not necessarily going to achieve that level of wealth solely from going to those schools. You’d have to exclude people who benefit from generational wealth in order to isolate and measure the impact of going to those schools in future earnings.

Both you and the other poster are missing the point. The point is even if what you say is true, the point is that the wealthy don't go to the state schools with the plebes. Don't you get it? That is precisely my point. But that is moot because you are wrong. Here is the data on the "generational wealth vs self made ratio for some of these schools


1 Harvard University Self made percentage is 78%
2 University of Pennsylvania 72%
3 Columbia University 75%
4 New York University 72%
5 Stanford University 76%
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77%
7 University of Chicago 82%
8 Northwestern University 72%
9 Yale University 74%
10 Princeton University 75%

Most of these folks made their wealth by themselves. I know this runs counter to the leftist class warfare nonsense, but it is what it is

Link?

PP can’t provide a link because no university collects the data necessary to derive those statistics.

You are a moron. A 30 second google search should give you the link. don't be an information welfare queen. Get off your butt and do some work.

NP. DCUM etiquette is to post supporting links. If you can’t bother to link then don’t bother to post.

The poster was rude and insinuated that no such data exists. Such a poster doesn't deserve any courtesy, Even with this I told him how to find the report

Plus you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Listen, here’s the study. Page 4 has a list of the universities that have educated the most “high net worth individuals.” http://www.wealthx.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Wealth-X_UHNW-Alumni-Report_2017-2.pdf

Understand what you’re seeing here: even from the universities who graduated the very most of these ultra rich, we are only talking about 200 to 800 TOTAL people in the world. (Exception is Harvard with 1900.) The average university of this size graduates 2000+ people per year, every year. I don’t think it’s a very useful measurement to know what tiny percentage of them eventually become billionaires (or NBA players, or Olympic athletes, or lottery winners), because the odds are that none of us or our children will be in those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need state universities to supply the labor that capitalists use to get richer. It is a beautiful system. State funded education to supply capitalists with trained labor. You work hard, they take most of the profits. They will never send their kids to sit next to your labor class child at a state school. Only a lucky few will break the class barrier and become capitalists and when they do, their kids will cease to attend state schools. State schools are for the masses. Everybody knows this

Huh -- I guess I should tell my husband, who went to public schools from kindergarten through getting an MA and an MBA, that he is the labor capitalists use to get richer. Here I was thinking he was the one making money, considering he's a VP at a Russell 1000 company making $350K.

I guess he's one of the "lucky few." Of course, I would attribute it to high-quality education and hard work, but thanks for correcting me. I'll tell him it's dumb luck that he beat the odds provided by his crappy education.

Lol. You are an idiot if you think $350k and a title of VP means your husband is not a salary grunt. Keep chugging away. You are barely in the top 1%. You will never get really rich providing your labor to somebody else but the capitalists will give you enough to make you feel eternally grateful and keep your husband submissive and docile

The ghost of Karl Marx is on this forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen, here’s the study. Page 4 has a list of the universities that have educated the most “high net worth individuals.” http://www.wealthx.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Wealth-X_UHNW-Alumni-Report_2017-2.pdf

Understand what you’re seeing here: even from the universities who graduated the very most of these ultra rich, we are only talking about 200 to 800 TOTAL people in the world. (Exception is Harvard with 1900.) The average university of this size graduates 2000+ people per year, every year. I don’t think it’s a very useful measurement to know what tiny percentage of them eventually become billionaires (or NBA players, or Olympic athletes, or lottery winners), because the odds are that none of us or our children will be in those numbers.

Why is NYU ranked so high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I attended one private university and one semi-public university back in the 1990s, and I received a good education at both and have moved on to have a fulfilling career(s) in my chosen fields of study. My daughter is now attending her second year at the University of Virginia. When we were applying to universities, I continually impressed on my daughter that she would have to make a very strong case for paying either private school tuition or OOS tuition given that we have very good in-state options in the Old Dominion. In the end, she did turn down Georgetown because, IMHO, it was not worth the extra $20K over UVA.

Its interesting to read the banter back and forth on these fora about what constitutes a "prestigious" university or college. You know what? Who cares? I'm not looking for bragging rights, but for the right fit for my child.

I am completely amused by the snobbery at state schools here. Somehow, some tiny LAC in backwoods Maine I've never heard of is a better choice than anything on offer at any of our fine public institutions. Two of the greatest things the United States ever did was create the system of Land Grant universities under the Morrill Act and open up the higher education system to the lower and middle classes through the GI Bill. This more or less democratized our educational institutions. The Ivies and other so-called "elite" schools play an oversized role in our higher education system while educating a very small percentage of our college students. As Robert Kaplan pointed out in his recent book "Earning the Rockies," the public institutions - the Indianas, the Iowas, etc. - play a much bigger and more important role in American educational and economic life. Much of the scientific, technological, and engineering research and training of America ton which postindustrial society depends takes place at our public institutions. They are worthy of our support and our respect.

I sense a dig at Bowdoin. Sorry she didn't get in, but it's a great school. Better than UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need state universities to supply the labor that capitalists use to get richer. It is a beautiful system. State funded education to supply capitalists with trained labor. You work hard, they take most of the profits. They will never send their kids to sit next to your labor class child at a state school. Only a lucky few will break the class barrier and become capitalists and when they do, their kids will cease to attend state schools. State schools are for the masses. Everybody knows this

Huh -- I guess I should tell my husband, who went to public schools from kindergarten through getting an MA and an MBA, that he is the labor capitalists use to get richer. Here I was thinking he was the one making money, considering he's a VP at a Russell 1000 company making $350K.

I guess he's one of the "lucky few." Of course, I would attribute it to high-quality education and hard work, but thanks for correcting me. I'll tell him it's dumb luck that he beat the odds provided by his crappy education.

Lol. You are an idiot if you think $350k and a title of VP means your husband is not a salary grunt. Keep chugging away. You are barely in the top 1%. You will never get really rich providing your labor to somebody else but the capitalists will give you enough to make you feel eternally grateful and keep your husband submissive and docile

Sorry, gotta agree with the PP. She is an idiot if she thinks that's a lot of income.

[Anonymous]

People from the Northeast are unusually dismissive of state schools. Places like Rutgers and the better SUNYs are regarded with near contempt even though they are perfectly good schools. In the rest of the country, people usually think quite highly of their local, big, state schools.

And DC is just an exceptionally snobby area.

Combine those two, and you have your explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need state universities to supply the labor that capitalists use to get richer. It is a beautiful system. State funded education to supply capitalists with trained labor. You work hard, they take most of the profits. They will never send their kids to sit next to your labor class child at a state school. Only a lucky few will break the class barrier and become capitalists and when they do, their kids will cease to attend state schools. State schools are for the masses. Everybody knows this

Huh -- I guess I should tell my husband, who went to public schools from kindergarten through getting an MA and an MBA, that he is the labor capitalists use to get richer. Here I was thinking he was the one making money, considering he's a VP at a Russell 1000 company making $350K.

I guess he's one of the "lucky few." Of course, I would attribute it to high-quality education and hard work, but thanks for correcting me. I'll tell him it's dumb luck that he beat the odds provided by his crappy education.

Lol. You are an idiot if you think $350k and a title of VP means your husband is not a salary grunt. Keep chugging away. You are barely in the top 1%. You will never get really rich providing your labor to somebody else but the capitalists will give you enough to make you feel eternally grateful and keep your husband submissive and docile

Sorry, gotta agree with the PP. She is an idiot if she thinks that's a lot of income.

It is a lot of income to 99% of the country.

I really hate DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need state universities to supply the labor that capitalists use to get richer. It is a beautiful system. State funded education to supply capitalists with trained labor. You work hard, they take most of the profits. They will never send their kids to sit next to your labor class child at a state school. Only a lucky few will break the class barrier and become capitalists and when they do, their kids will cease to attend state schools. State schools are for the masses. Everybody knows this

Huh -- I guess I should tell my husband, who went to public schools from kindergarten through getting an MA and an MBA, that he is the labor capitalists use to get richer. Here I was thinking he was the one making money, considering he's a VP at a Russell 1000 company making $350K.

I guess he's one of the "lucky few." Of course, I would attribute it to high-quality education and hard work, but thanks for correcting me. I'll tell him it's dumb luck that he beat the odds provided by his crappy education.

Lol. You are an idiot if you think $350k and a title of VP means your husband is not a salary grunt. Keep chugging away. You are barely in the top 1%. You will never get really rich providing your labor to somebody else but the capitalists will give you enough to make you feel eternally grateful and keep your husband submissive and docile

Sorry, gotta agree with the PP. She is an idiot if she thinks that's a lot of income.

It is a lot of income to 99% of the country.

I really hate DC.

Oh stop. The vast majority of people in the DC area recognize that’s a ton of money. Obviously the poster above is a dope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I attended one private university and one semi-public university back in the 1990s, and I received a good education at both and have moved on to have a fulfilling career(s) in my chosen fields of study. My daughter is now attending her second year at the University of Virginia. When we were applying to universities, I continually impressed on my daughter that she would have to make a very strong case for paying either private school tuition or OOS tuition given that we have very good in-state options in the Old Dominion. In the end, she did turn down Georgetown because, IMHO, it was not worth the extra $20K over UVA.

Its interesting to read the banter back and forth on these fora about what constitutes a "prestigious" university or college. You know what? Who cares? I'm not looking for bragging rights, but for the right fit for my child.

I am completely amused by the snobbery at state schools here. Somehow, some tiny LAC in backwoods Maine I've never heard of is a better choice than anything on offer at any of our fine public institutions. Two of the greatest things the United States ever did was create the system of Land Grant universities under the Morrill Act and open up the higher education system to the lower and middle classes through the GI Bill. This more or less democratized our educational institutions. The Ivies and other so-called "elite" schools play an oversized role in our higher education system while educating a very small percentage of our college students. As Robert Kaplan pointed out in his recent book "Earning the Rockies," the public institutions - the Indianas, the Iowas, etc. - play a much bigger and more important role in American educational and economic life. Much of the scientific, technological, and engineering research and training of America ton which postindustrial society depends takes place at our public institutions. They are worthy of our support and our respect.

Your H alone makes $300,000+ per year and you couldn't save for a college? And you still need to be a stay-at-home mom when your kids are grown?