Anonymous wrote:

Major matters much more
For example UMD CS >> Harvard English

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

I was referencing very specific outcomes to prove that in fact in certain industries or in terms of ease of raising venture capital...it does a ton to facilitate that outcome. For some reason, you just refuse to concede that may be the case.

Yes, those are all strong outcomes...just not the outcomes to which I am referring.

Anonymous wrote:I also think that as people with “elite” school degrees (such as myself) realize that it is getting hard for our super-qualified children to get into the same elite schools, we will open up hiring in our companies to the less traditionally “elite” schools. Which is a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm, I think it does in terms of "life interestingness" but not necessarily wealth.

Harvard couple I know -- one person founded their own non-profit, one is a acclaimed novelist. MIT couple -- founded a few tech companies (and now are millionaires). Another elite school couple (Naval Academy, which has similar standards) -- another founder of a company, another writer. Stanford friend -- furniture designer who has won awards. Columbia friend works for the NYTimes. Friend from Brown is another serial entrepreneur. Money varies, but all have a lot of freedom to do what they want, and No one has a boring job.

+1 I would say this is a big difference between McKinsey and Capital One as well. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad: no
Grad: yes

Case in point: The current CEO of General Electric went to Washington College in Chestertown for his undergrad, then went straight to Harvard Business School.

He’s an ancient white dude

Nowadays HBS wants experience from very specific ranks at specific companies or industries.

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad: no
Grad: yes

Case in point: The current CEO of General Electric went to Washington College in Chestertown for his undergrad, then went straight to Harvard Business School.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

I was referencing very specific outcomes to prove that in fact in certain industries or in terms of ease of raising venture capital...it does a ton to facilitate that outcome. For some reason, you just refuse to concede that may be the case.

Yes, those are all strong outcomes...just not the outcomes to which I am referring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergrad: no
Grad: yes

Case in point: The current CEO of General Electric went to Washington College in Chestertown for his undergrad, then went straight to Harvard Business School.

He’s an ancient white dude

Nowadays HBS wants experience from very specific ranks at specific companies or industries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.

Dale and Kruger does not say a poor kid will do MUCH better if they attend Stanford. There is a slight advantage, probably due to networking opportunities. It is an important study regardless of your opinion that it's BS.

And I'm confused as to what you mean by outcome. Being a CEO is a pretty darn strong outcome. Same goes for the other lists on that website--NASA engineer, Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon, top-ranked stock analyst, etc.

Why do you want to attribute your (I presume) success to the school you attended when that success is actually due to your own brilliance, hard work, teamwork, etc? It makes no sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:Management consulting is not interviewing at those schools. Big 4 are generally not recruiting at those schools either. They will accept students from them, generally for it advisory, audit, or assurance, and maybe a couple people in transaction advisory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some version of this thread seems to be posted like once a week...not sure who or why.

It doesn't really matter if you want to live a nice life, though some majors clearly have better outcomes than others.

However, this does not dispute the fact that the top schools produce an inordinate number of successful entrepreneurs and attract an inordinate amount of venture capital (https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings).

In fact, an inordinate number of Top 10 school graduates dominate the ranks of venture capital firms (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-12-schools-produce-the-most-venture-capitalists.html).

If you want to break into Hollywood...it's not rocket science that yes it helps / matters that you attend USC (also, USC is actually the #1 school where SpaceX recruits, so maybe it is rocket science).

One can go on-and-on.

EY, Accenture, Capital One, etc. are hiring hundreds of kids each year and absolutely cast a wide net.

There just seems like some weird, reflexive group on DCUM that goes to great lengths to justify maybe a kid's rejection, or didn't even apply because could not afford it, etc.

All those inordinate numbers are due to the colleges you're talking about getting an inordinate number of the hs students most likely to be a successful entrepreneur or venture capitalist. That's who they're admitting. But comparable students at less elite colleges have the exact same chances of finding success in any field.

Show me something...anything to support your comment.

I guarantee you that due to location and reputation, there are quite literally 100x+ more VCs attending a Stanford business plan competition vs. South Dakota State.

I don't dispute your comment about Stanford vs. SD State. But a student who is capable of being admitted to Stanford and CHOOSES to go to SD State instead will have the same success. Sure, they might have to be more proactive about getting the attention of those making the decisions, but that's about the only difference. Here's a link to Dale and Kruger, in case you haven't read it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871566

Also, it's worth looking at the lists that were linked to earlier. The only list South Dakota State is on according to a search of the site is that for US Senators' colleges, but there are plenty of comparable colleges on all of the lists. Here's the one for CEOs of major US companies, which includes loads of colleges that admit pretty much anyone who applies. Success is due to who the person is, not the college they attend.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

More with the Dale & Kreuger BS. That kid may have the same success at SD State as the Stanford kid if they both decide they just want a nice life as a SW engineer somewhere. However, the kid that goes to South Dakota state and comes up with the next Google will have a 1000x harder time getting funding for their idea vs. the Stanford kid. BTW...as Dale & Krueger point out...if that South Dakota kid is poor, then actually Stanford will produce a great outcome for him or her....much better than South Dakota State.

Also, this was not about becoming a CEO somewhere. This was just making the point that to say that where you go to college can matter depending on what outcome you want post-college.