Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

As is typical on DCUM, people threatened by a particular assertion will simply blatantly misrepresent it in order to try to discredit it. Here is what Silver actually said:

"But if this student was just going to school to “find herself” — and she or her parents were footing most of the bill? Yeah, probably go with the top-flight state school — especially if she’s in a state with a very good in-state public school where the cost savings are much greater. Better that than to emerge with a mountain of debt and a degree from an institution that is likely to be viewed as highly polarizing. Public perceptions of higher education have declined rapidly, and I expect the problems to get worse."

How does the sentence above address situations where the out-of-state public option is more expensive?

He is saying IF you have a strong state school option that is cheaper than the Ivy that is probably your best choice. If you are looking at an Ivy and a state school that both cost the same amount of money, then the choice is less clear. Though you may consider that having the Ivy League degree may actually have some disadvantages in terms of perceptions by employers (and I'd argue a potential to make your child struggle in the workforce when their job prospects don't match up with the marketing that the Ivy bombard them with).

Anonymous wrote:DP Define "golden ticket"? Everyone wants different things. There certainly are fields where an Ivy league degree has a lot of cachet. But many people don't want to get into Big Law. For many people the "golden ticket" is interesting government work with a decent paycheck. Work life balance is so much more important than a lot of people realize until they have no time for their families.

You're telling us that statistically speaking "interesting government work with a decent paycheck" is desired by just as many people as BigLaw/management consulting/investment banking/quant firm/surgeon jobs?

Also it's way easier to downshift and obtain the rare jobs with good pay/work-life balance, than the other way around.

Anonymous wrote:Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

Are you full pay? We are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

As is typical on DCUM, people threatened by a particular assertion will simply blatantly misrepresent it in order to try to discredit it. Here is what Silver actually said:

"But if this student was just going to school to “find herself” — and she or her parents were footing most of the bill? Yeah, probably go with the top-flight state school — especially if she’s in a state with a very good in-state public school where the cost savings are much greater. Better that than to emerge with a mountain of debt and a degree from an institution that is likely to be viewed as highly polarizing. Public perceptions of higher education have declined rapidly, and I expect the problems to get worse."

How does the sentence above address situations where the out-of-state public option is more expensive?

dp.. please re-read the sentence; it answers your question -- " especially if she’s in a state with a very good in-state public school where the cost savings are much greater"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

As is typical on DCUM, people threatened by a particular assertion will simply blatantly misrepresent it in order to try to discredit it. Here is what Silver actually said:

"But if this student was just going to school to “find herself” — and she or her parents were footing most of the bill? Yeah, probably go with the top-flight state school — especially if she’s in a state with a very good in-state public school where the cost savings are much greater. Better that than to emerge with a mountain of debt and a degree from an institution that is likely to be viewed as highly polarizing. Public perceptions of higher education have declined rapidly, and I expect the problems to get worse."

typical DCUM - can't read.

1 the parent's aren't footing the bill, the zillion dollar endowment is.
2 agree but what about if there's NO DEBT.

literally half (+) the people going to these HYPSM schools pay no tuition at all and almost as many pay no tuition and no r/b. it's cheaper than living at home and not going to college at all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:safer bet is to try to get into a good but not hyper selective college and to do well there

How is it a "safer bet"? The competition is way more stiff, because in terms of sheer numbers there are more good students and you need to finish higher in the class than at the top schools (where the margin for error is usually much greater).

Look, you’re going to have to perform in college at some level. Or maybe that’s the obsession with elite colleges - you can coast without actually having to compete with anyone. But is it really harder (for the kid who would be a legitimate candidate to apply to an Ivy) to graduate magna at Penn State or University of Delaware than it is to get into Princeton? I very much doubt it. If you’re 16 or 17, and that was the career you thought you wanted, you are (and will be more true 5-10 years from now) more likely to get into a T75 college, graduate magna, and get a job at consulting firm X than you are to get into a 5% acceptance rate college and get a job at consulting firm X. Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive, you can apply to Princeton and StateU or whatever, but people need to realize that StateU is a viable path to pretty much anything they want to do.

No one's saying it's not viable. There are simply fewer paths to [insert golden ticket] by attending StateU.

Let's take Harvard Law for example. Yes, they have 1Ls from a whole bunch of schools, but the vast majority of them are sending one student. You think that graduating magna/summa at Penn State or University of Delaware is sufficient for admission to HLS? It's table stakes. You likely need both a 4.0 and top LSAT score. Whereas those applying from Princeton are likely competitive candidates with either a 4.0/decent enough LSAT or a top LSAT score/decent enough GPA. In other words, multiple possible paths...a greater margin for error and a more enjoyable undergraduate experience most likely (knowing that anything short of an A won't sink your chances).

I’m a lawyer and am married to one. Yes, a high GPA and LSAT score at Penn State, Delaware, or Northern Southern Central Kansas A&M will easily get you into Harvard Law School. Undergrad school does not matter one bit in law school admissions.

The only downside of going to a crap undergrad and Harvard Law School is that you still have to be a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

As is typical on DCUM, people threatened by a particular assertion will simply blatantly misrepresent it in order to try to discredit it. Here is what Silver actually said:

"But if this student was just going to school to “find herself” — and she or her parents were footing most of the bill? Yeah, probably go with the top-flight state school — especially if she’s in a state with a very good in-state public school where the cost savings are much greater. Better that than to emerge with a mountain of debt and a degree from an institution that is likely to be viewed as highly polarizing. Public perceptions of higher education have declined rapidly, and I expect the problems to get worse."

How does the sentence above address situations where the out-of-state public option is more expensive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Double Ivy grad. Hiring manager at major consulting firm. Agree with everything Silver said. Everything is spot on.

It's not the 1990s any more. Most parents with kids heading to college won't realize how much higher education has changed since their days, especially at elite schools. Even if the name of the classes look familiar, how those classes are taught is hugely different now and far more ideologically slanted.

Our best associates and analyst these days are from major state schools but there's also a place for the good and solid LACs too, so don't lose hope.

BigLaw hiring says otherwise.
https://lawschooli.com/best-law-schools-for-biglaw/

BigLaw = BigAholes

Nobody cares.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I slept with my TA

+1 Unfortunately, it didn't help my grade as much as I assumed it would.

Maybe you weren’t any good in the sack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:safer bet is to try to get into a good but not hyper selective college and to do well there

How is it a "safer bet"? The competition is way more stiff, because in terms of sheer numbers there are more good students and you need to finish higher in the class than at the top schools (where the margin for error is usually much greater).

Look, you’re going to have to perform in college at some level. Or maybe that’s the obsession with elite colleges - you can coast without actually having to compete with anyone. But is it really harder (for the kid who would be a legitimate candidate to apply to an Ivy) to graduate magna at Penn State or University of Delaware than it is to get into Princeton? I very much doubt it. If you’re 16 or 17, and that was the career you thought you wanted, you are (and will be more true 5-10 years from now) more likely to get into a T75 college, graduate magna, and get a job at consulting firm X than you are to get into a 5% acceptance rate college and get a job at consulting firm X. Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive, you can apply to Princeton and StateU or whatever, but people need to realize that StateU is a viable path to pretty much anything they want to do.

No one's saying it's not viable. There are simply fewer paths to [insert golden ticket] by attending StateU.

Let's take Harvard Law for example. Yes, they have 1Ls from a whole bunch of schools, but the vast majority of them are sending one student. You think that graduating magna/summa at Penn State or University of Delaware is sufficient for admission to HLS? It's table stakes. You likely need both a 4.0 and top LSAT score. Whereas those applying from Princeton are likely competitive candidates with either a 4.0/decent enough LSAT or a top LSAT score/decent enough GPA. In other words, multiple possible paths...a greater margin for error and a more enjoyable undergraduate experience most likely (knowing that anything short of an A won't sink your chances).

DP Define "golden ticket"? Everyone wants different things. There certainly are fields where an Ivy league degree has a lot of cachet. But many people don't want to get into Big Law. For many people the "golden ticket" is interesting government work with a decent paycheck. Work life balance is so much more important than a lot of people realize until they have no time for their families.

Anonymous wrote:Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

As is typical on DCUM, people threatened by a particular assertion will simply blatantly misrepresent it in order to try to discredit it. Here is what Silver actually said:

"But if this student was just going to school to “find herself” — and she or her parents were footing most of the bill? Yeah, probably go with the top-flight state school — especially if she’s in a state with a very good in-state public school where the cost savings are much greater. Better that than to emerge with a mountain of debt and a degree from an institution that is likely to be viewed as highly polarizing. Public perceptions of higher education have declined rapidly, and I expect the problems to get worse."

Nate's whole argument hinges on the idea that these schools are more expensive than your good state university, which is not the case for many of us.

Would I pay more for Indiana than Penn? No, I would not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only data he actually cites doesn’t really support his claim.

1. Public perception of higher education generally has slipped. This doesn’t support the claim that elite colleges are harmed more than state schools.

2. Polls that say private schools are not worth the cost of public. Again this doesn’t distinguish between “elite” and non elite public. Maybe people would say “yes, I wouldn’t pay for Elon but I think MIT is worth it”

3. Harvard perception. The division along political lines suggests that this is a political issue. Republicans voters have been told to hate those east coast liberal colleges and their students. But the average Republican voter isn’t hiring anyone. It would be more interesting to see a poll along socio economic and geographic lines. Do NYC republicans have the same view? That’s more relevant than people in Alabama.

Maybe the book will have more information but otherwise this seems like a whole lot of opinion and conjecture for now.

I'm a hiring manager who has definitely had opinions of elite colleges change over the last few years. Also a graduate of an elite college myself.

Should reread his post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. Silver speaks to everything you raised.

+1 similarly situated hiring manager. I need people who work hard and listen to other people’s opinions, not people who feel entitled to a top spot because their parents rode them through high school and they prepped well for standardized tests.

Heard something similar from a research scientist. They said that state grads made better RA than ivy grads who felt cleaning equipment was beneath them, and kept touting how they went to "some elite" college.

This is some seriously stereotyped thinking. Some bosses don't like to feel threatened by their "underlings" too and purposefully hire for those who seem more subservient so they won't get shown up. Some have chips on their shoulders about schools too. Just judge people on their merits and don't make up some generalized stories about the "elite" or "state school grads."

I've met far more kids from Elite schools with "chip on their shoulder" than from state schools. If I'm running a Chem or Bio lab, the entry level positions for BA/BS degrees most likely includes cleaning and prepping equipment in the job description. Those jobs are well known for being grunt work jobs. I want to hire someone who is going to do that job and do it well, not someone who is going to spend their days complaining that they are not yet getting to do the "real work". Well if you want to "do the real work" you have to work your way up and most likely go get your MS/PHD. Otherwise you start doing the grunt work and not getting paid a lot (for having a Stem Degree).

Sounds like a crappy system that the "elite" students are right to challenge tbh. Why do you need a college grad for a "grunt work" job? Bio/chem research is notorious for keeping people in low-paying environments for way too long given how challenging the major is (e.g. having to do post-docs to get a research job). Sounds like it could use people to question the system and envision new opportunities and ways of working.

Because along with the "grunt level work" it does include lab work that requires the employee to have a BS/BA. It's not ALL "grunt level work" that could be done by someone with a HS diploma. It's well known that you need a MS/PHD to do the real research work in that area. So if you want to question the system and not do the work, then go directly and get an advanced degree. Or choose a different career path.
Because in reality, even with an MS, you will likely still work for someone with their PHD who is leading the research. You will not have your OWN lab typically until you have your PHD. I know, have a friend who has a BS in chemistry, worked for several years, then got their MS and got a better job with more interesting work, but ultimately even then, you are still under the guidance of the PHD in charge. So if you want to make your own decisions, you go get your PHD (they are).
Just because you went to Harvard does not mean you get to demand you are qualified to go directly to "only interesting work". But you knew going into that major (if you did any research) that this is the path to success.

Just saying that most of the Bio/Chem people I know think the current field is problematic and not producing sufficient rewards as other fields (unless Chem is chemical engineering or other industrial applications). So maybe you want people to shake up the system a bit and re-imagine new ways rather than just accepting it as is. Of course this can rub the old guard wrong--and sometimes recent grads from all sorts of schools are entitled, clueless brats. In college kids are getting to do real research, I don't really see why a BA/BS position has to be such grunt work. Maybe you can write a cleaning staff into the research grant and actually hire people for their experience/knowledge rather than do what sounds like a bit of a hazing ritual to me.

Also it seems your example really doesn't address the issue of this thread--you're saying state school grads are more willing to do the grunt work that kind of stalls you on your career path whereas Ivy kids are more likely to not want to put up with the grunt work and catch on to the fact that you quickly need an advanced degree or want to seek a better paying field. To my ears, it sounds like the latter may support greater confidence and ambition and give a better ROI for the individual from the elite school (even if you find them entitled and annoying). Tons of people are beloved workers by their bosses who are held down because they don't mind doing the grunt work for more years than they should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:safer bet is to try to get into a good but not hyper selective college and to do well there

How is it a "safer bet"? The competition is way more stiff, because in terms of sheer numbers there are more good students and you need to finish higher in the class than at the top schools (where the margin for error is usually much greater).

Look, you’re going to have to perform in college at some level. Or maybe that’s the obsession with elite colleges - you can coast without actually having to compete with anyone. But is it really harder (for the kid who would be a legitimate candidate to apply to an Ivy) to graduate magna at Penn State or University of Delaware than it is to get into Princeton? I very much doubt it. If you’re 16 or 17, and that was the career you thought you wanted, you are (and will be more true 5-10 years from now) more likely to get into a T75 college, graduate magna, and get a job at consulting firm X than you are to get into a 5% acceptance rate college and get a job at consulting firm X. Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive, you can apply to Princeton and StateU or whatever, but people need to realize that StateU is a viable path to pretty much anything they want to do.

No one's saying it's not viable. There are simply fewer paths to [insert golden ticket] by attending StateU.

Let's take Harvard Law for example. Yes, they have 1Ls from a whole bunch of schools, but the vast majority of them are sending one student. You think that graduating magna/summa at Penn State or University of Delaware is sufficient for admission to HLS? It's table stakes. You likely need both a 4.0 and top LSAT score. Whereas those applying from Princeton are likely competitive candidates with either a 4.0/decent enough LSAT or a top LSAT score/decent enough GPA. In other words, multiple possible paths...a greater margin for error and a more enjoyable undergraduate experience most likely (knowing that anything short of an A won't sink your chances).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only data he actually cites doesn’t really support his claim.

1. Public perception of higher education generally has slipped. This doesn’t support the claim that elite colleges are harmed more than state schools.

2. Polls that say private schools are not worth the cost of public. Again this doesn’t distinguish between “elite” and non elite public. Maybe people would say “yes, I wouldn’t pay for Elon but I think MIT is worth it”

3. Harvard perception. The division along political lines suggests that this is a political issue. Republicans voters have been told to hate those east coast liberal colleges and their students. But the average Republican voter isn’t hiring anyone. It would be more interesting to see a poll along socio economic and geographic lines. Do NYC republicans have the same view? That’s more relevant than people in Alabama.

Maybe the book will have more information but otherwise this seems like a whole lot of opinion and conjecture for now.

I'm a hiring manager who has definitely had opinions of elite colleges change over the last few years. Also a graduate of an elite college myself.

Should reread his post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. Silver speaks to everything you raised.

+1 similarly situated hiring manager. I need people who work hard and listen to other people’s opinions, not people who feel entitled to a top spot because their parents rode them through high school and they prepped well for standardized tests.

Heard something similar from a research scientist. They said that state grads made better RA than ivy grads who felt cleaning equipment was beneath them, and kept touting how they went to "some elite" college.

This is some seriously stereotyped thinking. Some bosses don't like to feel threatened by their "underlings" too and purposefully hire for those who seem more subservient so they won't get shown up. Some have chips on their shoulders about schools too. Just judge people on their merits and don't make up some generalized stories about the "elite" or "state school grads."

I've met far more kids from Elite schools with "chip on their shoulder" than from state schools. If I'm running a Chem or Bio lab, the entry level positions for BA/BS degrees most likely includes cleaning and prepping equipment in the job description. Those jobs are well known for being grunt work jobs. I want to hire someone who is going to do that job and do it well, not someone who is going to spend their days complaining that they are not yet getting to do the "real work". Well if you want to "do the real work" you have to work your way up and most likely go get your MS/PHD. Otherwise you start doing the grunt work and not getting paid a lot (for having a Stem Degree).

Sounds like a crappy system that the "elite" students are right to challenge tbh. Why do you need a college grad for a "grunt work" job? Bio/chem research is notorious for keeping people in low-paying environments for way too long given how challenging the major is (e.g. having to do post-docs to get a research job). Sounds like it could use people to question the system and envision new opportunities and ways of working.

DP you are correct that research jobs in the bio/chem field don't pay well enough, but that's really beside the point. I work in a field that requires a lot of writing, and a person out of college or grad school, whether it be an Ivy or a public university or anything in between, is not ready to produce documents ready for prime time. We have to start them with the less glamourous work, and spend a lot of time correcting and rewriting their work, because that is how they learn. I had the misfortune of working with a Harvard grad that came in to an internship assuming he was super smart and didn't need to learn anything, and could not take feedback. If you can't help with the grunt work, and are still learning how to do the "real" work, and can't take feedback, then you aren't going to be a valuable member of the team. Needless to say, I torpedoed his effort to get a full time position with us.

The other problem with offering jobs to Ivy league grads is that if you are not McKinsey or the IMF or whatever they all think they are doing you a favor by considering a job at your org/agency/company. Meaning the odds of them accepting the position are lower than with others. Meanwhile you risk losing other strong candidates.

+1

Graduating from an elite college does not entitle you to skip the learning process on any job. You are not any smarter/better than someone from State U who did well in college. Ultimately success in the real world comes from how well you take feedback, work well with others and can be an important part of the team, which means doing your job even if you think the work is below you. You need to understand all aspects of the work, not just the high level "exciting/glamourous" part.