Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

The college name can get you an interview, but if you're not good enough to pass the interviews, you're not getting the job no matter if you're at Harvard or Wyoming State

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

No, some of them are smart but not outstanding. No employer wants someone from the bottom of a class.

On the other hand, I've never had an employer ask my class rank.

Your first job didn't ask for your transcript?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Gladwell's books; I understand the message.

Providing the obvious conclusion with the same data.

Top 10% at MIT did better than the bottom 10% - maybe the top 10% are just more driven?

Ok - the bottom 10% MIT are better than the top 10% somewhere else? Anyone confirm that? HS GPA or SAT score? maybe they matured late and got much smarter after 4 years?

Gladwell himself says in Outliers that after a certain intelligence level other things take over. He gave the example of a basket ball player - taller you are the better the chance but after a certain height you need a bit extra. How do you know top 10% at any school may not have that extra that the bottom 10% don't?

Lots of evidence shows that’s not actually true. Good for a pop science writer to make money with though.

+1 There is no ceiling on the benefits of IQ. But people don't really like this answer.

Er, not quite. The higher your IQ, the higher the chances that you’ll have to explain your amazing ideas to someone not as smart as you. that’s a separate skill that doesn’t always correlate to the raw power of your intellect. And because your IQ is so high, what benefits you may not be scalable aka “sellable”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR - Gladwell, while entertaining, leaves out crucial data that compromises his conclusions, or at least complicates them.

Malcolm Gladwell is entertaining, and he makes readers think that he's letting people in on something that isn't intuitively obvious.
As a professor for over 20 years, though, he examples--as explained by OP, as I haven't read the linked transcript--are not great. First of all, the retention rate at Harvard after five years is almost 100%. At Maryland, it's closer to 80%. You are much more likely to graduate with a degree, period, from Harvard than from UMD; and you are much more likely to drop out of college without a degree if you go to UMD.

Second, the output of papers for econ PhDs is actually not the "best" measure of success. Few econ PhDs actually go into R1 academia or think tanks where they are expected to publish papers. Many end up working for the fed or going into private industry, where they are not publishing papers. And if you end up, like most PhDs in academia, at an R2 or SLAC, publishing frequently is not a criteria for tenure. The number of publications is hardly measure of "success," but the average reader of Gladwell wouldn't know this.

I think most people don't know that about 10% of people with a PHD go into academia. THat's it.

Anonymous wrote:TLDR - Gladwell, while entertaining, leaves out crucial data that compromises his conclusions, or at least complicates them.

Malcolm Gladwell is entertaining, and he makes readers think that he's letting people in on something that isn't intuitively obvious.
As a professor for over 20 years, though, he examples--as explained by OP, as I haven't read the linked transcript--are not great. First of all, the retention rate at Harvard after five years is almost 100%. At Maryland, it's closer to 80%. You are much more likely to graduate with a degree, period, from Harvard than from UMD; and you are much more likely to drop out of college without a degree if you go to UMD.

Second, the output of papers for econ PhDs is actually not the "best" measure of success. Few econ PhDs actually go into R1 academia or think tanks where they are expected to publish papers. Many end up working for the fed or going into private industry, where they are not publishing papers. And if you end up, like most PhDs in academia, at an R2 or SLAC, publishing frequently is not a criteria for tenure. The number of publications is hardly measure of "success," but the average reader of Gladwell wouldn't know this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read Gladwell's books; I understand the message.

Providing the obvious conclusion with the same data.

Top 10% at MIT did better than the bottom 10% - maybe the top 10% are just more driven?

Ok - the bottom 10% MIT are better than the top 10% somewhere else? Anyone confirm that? HS GPA or SAT score? maybe they matured late and got much smarter after 4 years?

Gladwell himself says in Outliers that after a certain intelligence level other things take over. He gave the example of a basket ball player - taller you are the better the chance but after a certain height you need a bit extra. How do you know top 10% at any school may not have that extra that the bottom 10% don't?

Lots of evidence shows that’s not actually true. Good for a pop science writer to make money with though.

+1 There is no ceiling on the benefits of IQ. But people don't really like this answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you have a kid at an elite and a kid at a typical public, the differences are stark. The opportunities provided by the elite school as well as willingness of professors to facilitate contacts at other elites is night and day, even for average students there.

That was the experience of a good friends kid. One went to a good public flagship, the other went to a good SLAC. Both had similar HS records and SAT scores. The one that went to a SLAC breezed to a 4.0, and had professors contacting colleagues at Ivy League grads programs to help her get accepted. His son was busting his butt in a CS program to get a 3.5, and had to really advocate for himself to get professors attention. In hindsight, paying 90k a year was worth it.

Anonymous wrote:This is pretty toxic!

"Big fish in a small pond" emphasizes on competition.

In elite schools there are far more going on than competition. Kids can be collaborative and community minded. The connections they established there help them far more than their gpa in their future career.

If you are the only big fish in the small pond, where are you finding your peers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the branding power of Harvard or MIT? Even if you were at the bottom of your class. Wouldn’t you still typically get a job easily with higher salary compared to a top engineering student at UMD?
Also, isn’t everyone at Harvard or MIT really smart to begin with?

No, some of them are smart but not outstanding. No employer wants someone from the bottom of a class.

On the other hand, I've never had an employer ask my class rank.

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day it comes down to who you know.