Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

This post should be made the header of the DCUM college section. It is so, so, so true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

I went to one of the aforementioned elite schools and chuckled when I read this crap. Where were the amazing internships falling into my lap? Where were the seminars with visiting SCOTUS justices? Where were all the interviews automatically happening with Goldman Sachs? Or even those nightly philosophical debates with fellow students? My god, how did I miss all of this? Har har har.

This "global key to locked doors" exists solely in the minds of college kids, not adults. There was a PP who referred to the top 20% at Harvard and I'd concur that the closest to a gilded track to success via walking into elite internships, analyst roles, grad programs, extends to maybe top 20% at Harvard, 15% at Yale/Princeton/Stanford, 10% at Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell/Duke etc. And some of those will be kids who already have family connections but it's really just the very tippity top of aptitude and capabilities.

Which still means most students are not getting onto the gilded track to success. Goldman Sachs doesn't take most kids who apply for jobs from these schools. Your typical grad of these schools is someone who ends up in a nice upper middle class life no different from all of his or her neighbors who went to other kinds of colleges but ended up in the same nice upper middle class life. And some will not do well. Some will end up in studios for life. Some are people who are socially awkward and never amount to much despite high academic aptitude (those of us who went to elite colleges recognize this demographic).

In the real world, senators have gone to all sorts of schools. In the real world the #1 feeder for F500 CEOs are flagship state universities. The elite colleges have nowhere near to a lock on elitedom insofar as it is defined. And especially not these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Despite the sarcasms here and arrogant tone, this is spot on….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a troll. I’m the parent of a HS sophomore who is killing themselves excelling in school and participating in extracurriculars to be competitive for T20.

At the same time, I see parents on here posting how their kid went to Cornell and ended up in the same place as someone who went to Pitt or another similarly ranked school.

At the same time, in my job I work alongside people who have gone to ivies and schools I’ve never heard of. I went to Michigan, btw.

My sister did her undergraduate at Oxford, stayed in the UK and is now partner at a well respected consulting firm alongside other partners that went to no name schools from India.

So seeing the stress my kid goes through, I am honestly asking what is the point of a Yale or Princeton if they take you to the same place that a school like Rutgers and Radford can take you?!

Ah, the perennial 'does it really matter?' question from those comfortably outside the velvet rope. Let me illuminate the distinction you are evidently missing.
Your anecdotes about colleagues ending up in the same building or your sister at Oxford alongside Indian partners prove precisely nothing beyond basic competence. Of course raw talent exists everywhere. Pitt, Radford, no name schools in India. The point is not whether someone can succeed; it is how they succeed, where they start, and the effortless glide path provided.

Yale or Princeton are not merely schools; they are global keys to locked doors. They provide:
1. An instant, unassailable brand worldwide. A resume that bypasses HR algorithms and lands directly on the desks of people you will never meet. No explaining required. Ever.
2. A network that is the establishment. Your Michigan peers are fine. My classmates run the firms, funds, and faculties your peers aspire to join. This network is not LinkedIn connections; it is lifetime access to decision makers who answer calls because of the crest on the degree.
3. A concentration of ambition and resources. Your sophomore is stressed? Good. They are competing in the Olympics, not the county fair. At Rutgers, they might be the smartest in the room. At Princeton? They are sitting alongside future Nobel laureates, Fortune 500 CEOs, and Senators. The expectations, the peers, the opportunities, it is simply a different universe of potential.

Does a Pitt grad eventually land a good job? Possibly. Does the Princeton grad walk into McKinsey, Goldman as a baseline expectation? Routinely. The 'same place' you naively observe is often just the starting line for the elite grad, while it is the finish line for others. The trajectory, the ceiling, the sheer ease of ascent, that is what you are paying for. And what your child is striving for.

The 'point' is securing a position where merit is assumed, doors open silently, and the path to the top is not a grueling climb, but a well lit escalator.

If you cannot perceive that distinction from your vantage point at Michigan... well, that rather proves it, does it not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have the means to pay for the IVY with out debt it will always be worth it.

Say you go to medical school and you are Harvard, Yale, etc trained. And you decide to make a career move or say you work for the government and opt to go back in to private practice. The Harvard trained doctor is always going to be given a leg up vs. the doctor from another school.

If you’re smart enough to be educated at an IVY you stand above the others. Even if only on paper. It opens doors.

It provides the ability to meet and marry a spouse who will be at an earning level well above others.

Membership has its benefits.

"Smart enough" isn't what gets people into Ivy league schools though. Plenty of people don't apply or don't get in who have the same level of intelligence, even the same stats.

Correct it is more than intelligence alone, it is also disciplined, ambitious, and highly organized that gets one into this level. Some of those that have these qualities do not get in or do not apply. Some get in with huge hooks that do not possess those qualities.
However, it remains true that the highest concentration of smart, driven students are at ivies/mit/stanford and a few other schools.
The peers are the main reason why students (and parents) are vying to get in to elites. It is why the major of those who got to attend want our kids to go to similar schools: we experienced it and know the value of that competitive and intelligent mix.

This is overwhelmingly not the main reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of the time do you spend driving above 75?

The point of superior acceleration isn't to drive above 75.

Anonymous wrote:What is point of living a life if we all end up in graves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's remarkable how people draw strong inferences from anecdotes. I see doctors doing this too, in matters of life and death. "I had one patient who..." Personal knowledge skews our conclusions.

So yeah you know this one kid from Skidmore who's a CEO, but come on people, do you really think going to a worse school doesn't reduce your odds of success? Why wouldn't you try to do the best you could at every step of the way?

It's a bit like arguing with vaccine skeptics. Vaccines are a public health necessity. But the people you're arguing with are, almost definitionally, not geniuses. You have to make the case, but you need to rely on repetition and appeals to emotion, not reason.

No, your college does not reduce your odds of success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have the means to pay for the IVY with out debt it will always be worth it.

Say you go to medical school and you are Harvard, Yale, etc trained. And you decide to make a career move or say you work for the government and opt to go back in to private practice. The Harvard trained doctor is always going to be given a leg up vs. the doctor from another school.

If you’re smart enough to be educated at an IVY you stand above the others. Even if only on paper. It opens doors.

It provides the ability to meet and marry a spouse who will be at an earning level well above others.

Membership has its benefits.

I

"Smart enough" isn't what gets people into Ivy league schools though. Plenty of people don't apply or don't get in who have the same level of intelligence, even the same stats.

Correct it is more than intelligence alone, it is also disciplined, ambitious, and highly organized that gets one into this level. Some of those that have these qualities do not get in or do not apply. Some get in with huge hooks that do not possess those qualities.
However, it remains true that the highest concentration of smart, driven students are at ivies/mit/stanford and a few other schools.
The peers are the main reason why students (and parents) are vying to get in to elites. It is why the major of those who got to attend want our kids to go to similar schools: we experienced it and know the value of that competitive and intelligent mix.

This is overwhelmingly not the main reason.

Speak for yourself, it was a major reason for both me and my kids.

“Speak for yourself, this was the reason for me” okay so you are speaking for yourself then.

Why pick a fight? I don't think we're alone here. I'm in agreement with the PP who said peer group was a big factor. You can disagree but it's not like this is settled gospel.