Anonymous wrote:Was your goal to get your child into certain social circles, op? Because that is what your post sounds like.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are just figuring this out? Of course it is overrated. This should be common knowledge. Elite schools are for GRAD school. No one gives a crap about undergrad unless you want to work on Wall Street. That is literally the only job where it matters.
There are very few people who should go to (non-law/medical) graduate school. You almost certainly shouldn't go to (non-law/medical) grad school for a job.
This whole, "you'll just go to a better graduate school" attitude is generally harmful. Most people will be better off spending that time gaining work experience. Perhaps it might be worth it to attend a prestigious master's program (especially if it's in computer science and you have a non-CS STEM degree), but the idea of a Ph.D. to make up for a lower ranked undergraduate program is silly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for the OP, because she realized the problems way too late. I fell into the same trap when I was in high school and have had many regrets over my choices. There are very few fields where prestige matters - like law, academia, or finance/business/consulting.
I went to a high ranking school and found out the same thing that the OP learned: motivated kids can be successful everywhere and that in real life, no one cares where you went for school. I found this out far too late because by that time, I was already a senior and needed to graduate. I work alongside people who got degrees from the University of Phoenix. There are people who got degrees from other online degree mills and did fine. I spent so much time in high school trying to get the best grades and take the hardest courses - yet none of it really matter that much. I regret putting so much pressure on myself.
Now that I am out of that bubble, when I see the frenzy around college admissions, it's just hilarious to me. It is all so trivial, although I understand why people get caught up in it (just like I did).
You sound lovely. I hope you were able to convey this levelheadedness to your children when they looked at colleges? I have a non status obsessed kid and I have to admit that sometimes it’s ME caring too much about prestige and rankings. It’s this gross keeping up with the Joneses thing that’s so prevalent around here... FWIW, my daughter’s better attitude prevailed and she is happily attending a school she actually likes that is just right for her that didn’t cost an arm and a leg and after which she hopefully will have a job. Thanks for posting...
Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for the OP, because she realized the problems way too late. I fell into the same trap when I was in high school and have had many regrets over my choices. There are very few fields where prestige matters - like law, academia, or finance/business/consulting.
I went to a high ranking school and found out the same thing that the OP learned: motivated kids can be successful everywhere and that in real life, no one cares where you went for school. I found this out far too late because by that time, I was already a senior and needed to graduate. I work alongside people who got degrees from the University of Phoenix. There are people who got degrees from other online degree mills and did fine. I spent so much time in high school trying to get the best grades and take the hardest courses - yet none of it really matter that much. I regret putting so much pressure on myself.
Now that I am out of that bubble, when I see the frenzy around college admissions, it's just hilarious to me. It is all so trivial, although I understand why people get caught up in it (just like I did).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are just figuring this out? Of course it is overrated. This should be common knowledge. Elite schools are for GRAD school. No one gives a crap about undergrad unless you want to work on Wall Street. That is literally the only job where it matters.
There are very few people who should go to (non-law/medical) graduate school. You almost certainly shouldn't go to (non-law/medical) grad school for a job.
This whole, "you'll just go to a better graduate school" attitude is generally harmful. Most people will be better off spending that time gaining work experience. Perhaps it might be worth it to attend a prestigious master's program (especially if it's in computer science and you have a non-CS STEM degree), but the idea of a Ph.D. to make up for a lower ranked undergraduate program is silly.
No one goes to a PhD program "just to make up for a lower ranked undergraduate program." That's just stupid because of how much time and effort it takes to get the degree.
They go to improve their career prospects. The grad students are mostly miserable, lots of them suffer from depression, especially the ones who are in oversaturated fields. They're overworked and underpaid, and most of them will never land that cushy job in academia.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are just figuring this out? Of course it is overrated. This should be common knowledge. Elite schools are for GRAD school. No one gives a crap about undergrad unless you want to work on Wall Street. That is literally the only job where it matters.
There are very few people who should go to (non-law/medical) graduate school. You almost certainly shouldn't go to (non-law/medical) grad school for a job.
This whole, "you'll just go to a better graduate school" attitude is generally harmful. Most people will be better off spending that time gaining work experience. Perhaps it might be worth it to attend a prestigious master's program (especially if it's in computer science and you have a non-CS STEM degree), but the idea of a Ph.D. to make up for a lower ranked undergraduate program is silly.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What does elite mean here?
Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and perhaps Princeton & Yale are elite.
Cornell, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Duke, etc. etc. are not.
And yes, even Harvard/MIT/Stanford/Princeton/Yale won't give your kid a $150k job, wealthy spouse (a 1950's reason to go to a elite school, but okay), and a wealthy, highly-connected friend group off the bat. And thank god for that.
The purpose of top schools is to have top professors and top students to learn from and compete with, and improve oneself in the process. Not a $150k job, wealthy spouse and highly-connected wealthy network.
What these schools do provide beyond the education though is a pedigree that lasts through 40+ years of one's careers, and certainly can come in handy down the line - if you want to use it.
As for the rest - Cornell, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Duke, etc., most people do not view these schools to be more "elite" than top state flagships like Berkeley, Michigan, etc. Most will consider these students to either be wealthy dumb kids (too dumb for HYPSM) or top middle-class kids, the same that attend top flagships.
Cornell, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Northwestern, and Duke ARE elite, and people recognize them as such. They may not be great economic deals for UMC families who pay full freight and have UVA, Michigan, or Berkeley as an in-state option, but for those who receive substantial grant-based financial aid or have enough money that full-freight doesn’t matter, these are awesome schools with a high-quality lifestyle experience. Yes, they are not HPYSM, but no one thinks these students are dumb rich kids or the equivalent of a Roll Tide graduate.
+1.
Cornell, USC, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Duke are good schools. Lori Loughlin bribed $500,000+ and risked 40 yrs behind bars to get her dumb (but rich) kids in to one of these. However, as good as they are, no one will confuse these schools for T5 ivies.
Literally laughed out loud. The only people who use the term "T5 Ivies" are UPenn grads, which explains the uninformed tirade on this entire thread.
Look, I understand you have a chip on your shoulder because your school always gets confused for a state school, but it's fine. As you inferred, the "top state flagships" are excellent, too, so there's no shame in being confused for one. It's just that it's a terrible look when you shart your biased and misinformed opinions all over the place.
POTUS Trump is a proud alum. No one says he got chips on his shoulder. If anything, he’s overconfident.
??? You people have terrible logic. Learn how to extrapolate information. Reading comprehension is your friend. One person from one school having a chip on their shoulder does not equal every single person ever associated with that school has a chip on their shoulder.
Also, Trump is a terrible example to use. He's the poster boy for insecurity, and overcompensating for said insecurity.
Anonymous wrote:You are just figuring this out? Of course it is overrated. This should be common knowledge. Elite schools are for GRAD school. No one gives a crap about undergrad unless you want to work on Wall Street. That is literally the only job where it matters.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true. There are some schools that are elite enough that you can use that brand to your advantage when you leave (Harvard) but the reality is, all those rigorous application processes do is allow the schools to discriminate in favor of the genteel, inbred elites, while letting a few plebeians in who know their place: to increase test scores, to feel inferior to the rich kids, and, to one day be the brainpower behind (but never the leadership of) major institutions in this country.
. I know, I know, you will say, but look at Mr. Free Lunch Program, he is a CEO. But the dirty secret of these universities is he would have been just as successful at a state u as an elite one, because that kind of drive is unstoppable. He used them and they used him to keep the myth alive that elite Universities are worth it for the kind of people who need to take out college loans.
Remeber that for the supperrich, of course, it matters not a bit where they send their kids. Will Blue Ivy be any less powerful if she attends Stanford vs Hamilton?
He used everyone and they used him. That is life. If you can do it. Could someone from a lower school make it over Harvard? Of course. Happens every day. But Harvard opens more doors and creates more options. What you do with those options is up to the student. But if you can afford it -- more options is better than less.[/quote
Yes, a good fraction of fortune 500 CEOs did not graduate from elite colleges, proving that one can be successful regardless of his educational background. But the percentage of CEO Ivy grads far exceed the ratio of Ivy grads among all college grads. What makes a person CEO material is a combination of intelligence, education, life experience, family wealth, and plain luck. Not knowing whether your child has "the right stuff", where would you send him for the best odds if you can afford it?
You list all the things that make a person CEO material but fail to consider whether being an Ivy League grad is a cause or an effect. The people that are CEOs now would have graduated from the Ivy’s when the average student was much more likely to have all of the other advantages you list going in than they are now. The significant percentage of lower income and “first gen” students is relatively new. To paraphrase Molly Ivins re: George Bush, in the past, most of the students were born on third base and you’re acting like they hit a triple. The studies that show that first gen students are benefitted by attendance at elite colleges were done in the old days, when those students were anomalies, surrounded by students from privileged backgrounds that could provide the social and professional connections that they lacked. What happens when that first gen student is surrounded by more first gen students? You’re relying upon the vaunted alumni network, you say? What if the alumni are disaffected because their kid didn’t get in?
We’re about to find out if the Ivy’s really provide any additional value or whether their “elite” status was previously the result of admitting people who were “elite” to begin with (and not just in terms of intelligence).
The analogy is to ask whether colleges are boot camps or modeling agencies. A boot camp would take any student and deliver a certain standard of achievement from all at graduation. A modeling agency recruits students based on existing/demonstrated talent and promotes it rather than developing it. Studies have shown that colleges are, in fact, modeling agencies as an individual's level of success can be predicted not based on the school he or she attended but on the "best" school he or she got into/could have gotten into.
There can be a debate whether colleges over the long term will become more like modeling agencies or boot camps. For the near term, they are what they are. Let's say I am looking for someone with some demonstrated talent, and I know the density of such talent is higher in one type of institution than another type. Maybe some fraction of that talent is pre-vetted, some developed. It doesn't matter, I don't have the time & resources to search the world, so I go where talent is plentiful. And if I was a parent wanting my kid to be considered for such talent, I send him to where the odds are best.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true. There are some schools that are elite enough that you can use that brand to your advantage when you leave (Harvard) but the reality is, all those rigorous application processes do is allow the schools to discriminate in favor of the genteel, inbred elites, while letting a few plebeians in who know their place: to increase test scores, to feel inferior to the rich kids, and, to one day be the brainpower behind (but never the leadership of) major institutions in this country.
. I know, I know, you will say, but look at Mr. Free Lunch Program, he is a CEO. But the dirty secret of these universities is he would have been just as successful at a state u as an elite one, because that kind of drive is unstoppable. He used them and they used him to keep the myth alive that elite Universities are worth it for the kind of people who need to take out college loans.
Remeber that for the supperrich, of course, it matters not a bit where they send their kids. Will Blue Ivy be any less powerful if she attends Stanford vs Hamilton?
He used everyone and they used him. That is life. If you can do it. Could someone from a lower school make it over Harvard? Of course. Happens every day. But Harvard opens more doors and creates more options. What you do with those options is up to the student. But if you can afford it -- more options is better than less.[/quote
Yes, a good fraction of fortune 500 CEOs did not graduate from elite colleges, proving that one can be successful regardless of his educational background. But the percentage of CEO Ivy grads far exceed the ratio of Ivy grads among all college grads. What makes a person CEO material is a combination of intelligence, education, life experience, family wealth, and plain luck. Not knowing whether your child has "the right stuff", where would you send him for the best odds if you can afford it?
You list all the things that make a person CEO material but fail to consider whether being an Ivy League grad is a cause or an effect. The people that are CEOs now would have graduated from the Ivy’s when the average student was much more likely to have all of the other advantages you list going in than they are now. The significant percentage of lower income and “first gen” students is relatively new. To paraphrase Molly Ivins re: George Bush, in the past, most of the students were born on third base and you’re acting like they hit a triple. The studies that show that first gen students are benefitted by attendance at elite colleges were done in the old days, when those students were anomalies, surrounded by students from privileged backgrounds that could provide the social and professional connections that they lacked. What happens when that first gen student is surrounded by more first gen students? You’re relying upon the vaunted alumni network, you say? What if the alumni are disaffected because their kid didn’t get in?
We’re about to find out if the Ivy’s really provide any additional value or whether their “elite” status was previously the result of admitting people who were “elite” to begin with (and not just in terms of intelligence).
The analogy is to ask whether colleges are boot camps or modeling agencies. A boot camp would take any student and deliver a certain standard of achievement from all at graduation. A modeling agency recruits students based on existing/demonstrated talent and promotes it rather than developing it. Studies have shown that colleges are, in fact, modeling agencies as an individual's level of success can be predicted not based on the school he or she attended but on the "best" school he or she got into/could have gotten into.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true. There are some schools that are elite enough that you can use that brand to your advantage when you leave (Harvard) but the reality is, all those rigorous application processes do is allow the schools to discriminate in favor of the genteel, inbred elites, while letting a few plebeians in who know their place: to increase test scores, to feel inferior to the rich kids, and, to one day be the brainpower behind (but never the leadership of) major institutions in this country.
. I know, I know, you will say, but look at Mr. Free Lunch Program, he is a CEO. But the dirty secret of these universities is he would have been just as successful at a state u as an elite one, because that kind of drive is unstoppable. He used them and they used him to keep the myth alive that elite Universities are worth it for the kind of people who need to take out college loans.
Remeber that for the supperrich, of course, it matters not a bit where they send their kids. Will Blue Ivy be any less powerful if she attends Stanford vs Hamilton?
He used everyone and they used him. That is life. If you can do it. Could someone from a lower school make it over Harvard? Of course. Happens every day. But Harvard opens more doors and creates more options. What you do with those options is up to the student. But if you can afford it -- more options is better than less.[/quote
Yes, a good fraction of fortune 500 CEOs did not graduate from elite colleges, proving that one can be successful regardless of his educational background. But the percentage of CEO Ivy grads far exceed the ratio of Ivy grads among all college grads. What makes a person CEO material is a combination of intelligence, education, life experience, family wealth, and plain luck. Not knowing whether your child has "the right stuff", where would you send him for the best odds if you can afford it?
You list all the things that make a person CEO material but fail to consider whether being an Ivy League grad is a cause or an effect. The people that are CEOs now would have graduated from the Ivy’s when the average student was much more likely to have all of the other advantages you list going in than they are now. The significant percentage of lower income and “first gen” students is relatively new. To paraphrase Molly Ivins re: George Bush, in the past, most of the students were born on third base and you’re acting like they hit a triple. The studies that show that first gen students are benefitted by attendance at elite colleges were done in the old days, when those students were anomalies, surrounded by students from privileged backgrounds that could provide the social and professional connections that they lacked. What happens when that first gen student is surrounded by more first gen students? You’re relying upon the vaunted alumni network, you say? What if the alumni are disaffected because their kid didn’t get in?
We’re about to find out if the Ivy’s really provide any additional value or whether their “elite” status was previously the result of admitting people who were “elite” to begin with (and not just in terms of intelligence).