Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's see a study that removes those who would have a $30M net worth regardless of whether they ever left their parents' basement.
What does this mean ? (Serious as I have no clue as to what you are trying to communicate in this post.)
DP: That they are not controlling for parental wealth in the study.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's see a study that removes those who would have a $30M net worth regardless of whether they ever left their parents' basement.
What does this mean ? (Serious as I have no clue as to what you are trying to communicate in this post.)
Anonymous wrote:Let's see a study that removes those who would have a $30M net worth regardless of whether they ever left their parents' basement.
Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh?? Wealthy, high achieving people produce wealthy, high achieving children. SHOCKER!! That has nothing to do with the college.
What's more interesting is the colleges that can take low income students and propel them into higher brackets. Here's that list.
Top performers on social mobility, per US News:
- Keiser University
- UC-Riverside
- CSU-Long Beach
- Florida International University
- UC-Merced
- University of LaVerne
- CSU Fullerton
- Oakland City University
- Rutgers University Newark
- UC Irvine
- UIC Chicao
- CUNY City College
- CSU San Bernadino
- Russell Sage College
- San Francisco State
- UC Santa Barbara
- Chatham University
- UC Santa Cruz
- UNC Greensboro
Not a single top 50 college on the list until all the way down to number 46, which is UCLA. University of Florida is #75. UC Berkeley #105.
Elite private schools? No where to be found until you scroll reaaaally far down. NYU is #140. Princeton is #186.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Schools that take a bunch of poor kids and get them jobs by issuing them a degree is not particularly exemplary of great academics. It’s the power of a college degree.
Right. Let’s quit pretending that all the California publics of various levels and quality have amazing academics or a magic wand. They’ve admitted good, but poor students and given them a reasonable education. The result is an acceptable college degree, which gets them started with a professional salary. I doubt many of those kids are headed to top graduate schools.
THE HORRORS!!! For what is life without "a top graduate school"??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Schools that take a bunch of poor kids and get them jobs by issuing them a degree is not particularly exemplary of great academics. It’s the power of a college degree.
Right. Let’s quit pretending that all the California publics of various levels and quality have amazing academics or a magic wand. They’ve admitted good, but poor students and given them a reasonable education. The result is an acceptable college degree, which gets them started with a professional salary. I doubt many of those kids are headed to top graduate schools.
Anonymous wrote:They are probably great for low income students who get a ton of financial aid and great for wealthy students who are already connected. Not sure about the ones in the middle.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is such nonsense. Do they even attempt to control for family wealth of the student body. A whole lot of these would be that wealthy if they went to NO college.
You’re missing the point. There is tremendous synergy in bringing together a mix of smart, ambitious, and wealthy students. Magic is going to happen in that situation much more so than some school with mediocre, traditionally hard-working, poor kids. It’s irrelevant whether or not the school’s academics are the magic, though these schools have plenty of academic accolades.
Magic?! More like privilege and entitlement.
Anonymous wrote:Like we need another ranking but here you go DCUM… what does this tell you?
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/dropping-out-of-harvard-may-be-the-best-path-to-unimagined-wealth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is such nonsense. Do they even attempt to control for family wealth of the student body. A whole lot of these would be that wealthy if they went to NO college.
You’re missing the point. There is tremendous synergy in bringing together a mix of smart, ambitious, and wealthy students. Magic is going to happen in that situation much more so than some school with mediocre, traditionally hard-working, poor kids. It’s irrelevant whether or not the school’s academics are the magic, though these schools have plenty of academic accolades.
Anonymous wrote:This is such nonsense. Do they even attempt to control for family wealth of the student body. A whole lot of these would be that wealthy if they went to NO college.
Anonymous wrote:Schools that take a bunch of poor kids and get them jobs by issuing them a degree is not particularly exemplary of great academics. It’s the power of a college degree.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh?? Wealthy, high achieving people produce wealthy, high achieving children. SHOCKER!! That has nothing to do with the college.
What's more interesting is the colleges that can take low income students and propel them into higher brackets. Here's that list.
Top performers on social mobility, per US News:
- Keiser University
- UC-Riverside
- CSU-Long Beach
- Florida International University
- UC-Merced
- University of LaVerne
- CSU Fullerton
- Oakland City University
- Rutgers University Newark
- UC Irvine
- UIC Chicao
- CUNY City College
- CSU San Bernadino
- Russell Sage College
- San Francisco State
- UC Santa Barbara
- Chatham University
- UC Santa Cruz
- UNC Greensboro
Not a single top 50 college on the list until all the way down to number 46, which is UCLA. University of Florida is #75. UC Berkeley #105.
Elite private schools? No where to be found until you scroll reaaaally far down. NYU is #140. Princeton is #186.
So, the lesson is: low income students should not go to the elite private schools, if they want to become wealthy.