Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?

Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.

Let me explain it to you this way.

There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?

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.

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.

If this isn't code for "I prefer candidates who speak the way I do and have a shared upper class background," I don't know what is.

You like people who are like you. The ones you can joke with about summers at the Cape, and which dining club they chose to join.

G-d help the smart, driven, kid who doesn't share your shibboleths.

Anonymous wrote:Do they control for family of origin wealth? I am from an ivy and don't make much more than colleagues from state schools -- but I was lower middle class from rural town, unlike vast majority of ivy classmates that were either from wealthy families or often urban magnet schools (even if their family was not wealthy, their secondary education far outstripped what my county could offer)

In short, the inability to catch up starts much earlier than college.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.

Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.

I always take these with a grain of salt.

I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).

In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.

Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.

Anonymous wrote:LOL, this is the "tier 4" poster from a recent thread about how sports at D2 and D3 schools are a scam.

Anonymous wrote:This is very interesting & I'm sure there is some truth to it. Of course it can only speak to averages & general trends, uses income as the primary measure (not everyone's sole or chief concern), and many of us know exceptions. But interesting contribution to the discussion.