Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 12:21     Subject: Re:Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not really. The articles only says that the average income for Tier 1/Tier 1 is greater than Tier 2-3/Tier 1. It doesn't compare those who do well/network aggressively at Tier 2 schools to those who sit back and wait for the phone to ring at Tier 1s.


Well, it's dealing with aggregates, isn't it. I am Tier 1/Tier 1 but am DCUM poor. My old roommate is a partner at Bain. A state school grad could easily get my job. My roommate's job? Less likely. The point is, motivation etc. is a separate issue that you want to control for in a study like this, although it's useful in thinking about to plan your own life.

The paper's argument is that "ability should be largely equalized among those who graduate from similarly selective graduate program" - i.e. comparing Slippery Rock/Yale Law students to Yale/Yale Law students is apples to apples, as far as motivation goes.

Anonymous wrote:As for your main point, it would be interesting to compare top tier undergrad admits who matriculated elsewhere and then attended top tier grad to Tier 1/Tier 1 grads. That would tease apart effect and selection.


Agree that would be interesting.


This study has been done:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/?_r=0


From the article"

But Ms. Dale — an economist at Mathematica, a research firm — and Mr. Krueger — a Princeton economist and former contributor to this blog — added a new variable in their research. They also controlled for the colleges that students applied to and were accepted by.

Doing so allowed them to capture much more information about the students than SAT scores and grades do. Someone who applies to Duke, Williams or Yale may be signaling that he or she is more confident and ambitious than someone with similar scores and grades who does not apply. Someone who is accepted by a highly selective school may have other skills that their scores didn’t pick up, but that the admissions officers noticed.

Once the two economists added these new variables, the earnings difference disappeared. In fact, it went away merely by including the colleges that students had applied to — and not taking into account whether they were accepted. A student with a 1,400 SAT score who went to Penn State but applied to Penn earned as much, on average, as a student with a 1,400 who went to Penn.

“Even applying to a school, even if you get rejected, says a lot about you,” Mr. Krueger told me. He points out that the average SAT score at the most selective college students apply to turns out to be a better predictor of their earnings than the average SAT score at the college they attended. (The study measured a college’s selectivity by the average SAT score of admitted students as well as by a selectivity score that the publisher Barron’s gives to colleges.)

It’s important to note, though, that a few major groups did not fit the pattern: black students, Latino students, low-income students and students whose parents did not graduate from college. “For them, attending a more selective school increased earnings significantly,” Mr. Krueger has written. Why? Perhaps they benefit from professional connections they would not otherwise have. Perhaps they acquire habits or skills that middle-class and affluent students have already acquired in high school or at home.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 12:18     Subject: Re:Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not really. The articles only says that the average income for Tier 1/Tier 1 is greater than Tier 2-3/Tier 1. It doesn't compare those who do well/network aggressively at Tier 2 schools to those who sit back and wait for the phone to ring at Tier 1s.


Well, it's dealing with aggregates, isn't it. I am Tier 1/Tier 1 but am DCUM poor. My old roommate is a partner at Bain. A state school grad could easily get my job. My roommate's job? Less likely. The point is, motivation etc. is a separate issue that you want to control for in a study like this, although it's useful in thinking about to plan your own life.

The paper's argument is that "ability should be largely equalized among those who graduate from similarly selective graduate program" - i.e. comparing Slippery Rock/Yale Law students to Yale/Yale Law students is apples to apples, as far as motivation goes.

Anonymous wrote:As for your main point, it would be interesting to compare top tier undergrad admits who matriculated elsewhere and then attended top tier grad to Tier 1/Tier 1 grads. That would tease apart effect and selection.


Agree that would be interesting.


This study has been done:

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/?_r=0
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 11:41     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:I think the upper class supporting the upper class is alive and well in the top tier schools. Once in awhile talent breaks through. And it seriously depends on the field. Comparing engineering to investment banking is apples to rabbits.


Seriously, and engineers make squat compared to investment bankers. I know SV 'engineers' make money, but really it's only founders who make real money, and those all come from wealthy connected families (look at SNAP founder). You rarely get a bright kid from middling high school with middle class parents able to swing getting capital to start a company and tolerating that risk of it failing (usually with enormous student debt).
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 11:01     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.


People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.


The trolling here is rather sad. The program I am associated with has a selectivity of about 10% and it is discussed often on this board as an "elite" school. I'm sorry if my opinion (which is mine, but based on experience with an increasingly large number of PhD students) offends you, but it's not irrelevant.


Not only do I find you offensive, but I believe you are ignorant. I am amazed that you are allowed to teach at what you call an elite school. You are part of the problem.



PP, you haven't read the part where she said studied at 'best chinese universities?' Having lived in Asia, with the exception of maybe Japan, you can buy a degree certificate in many places outright. Ever wonder why they rather come here to get educated?
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 10:48     Subject: Re:Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:Not really. The articles only says that the average income for Tier 1/Tier 1 is greater than Tier 2-3/Tier 1. It doesn't compare those who do well/network aggressively at Tier 2 schools to those who sit back and wait for the phone to ring at Tier 1s.


Well, it's dealing with aggregates, isn't it. I am Tier 1/Tier 1 but am DCUM poor. My old roommate is a partner at Bain. A state school grad could easily get my job. My roommate's job? Less likely. The point is, motivation etc. is a separate issue that you want to control for in a study like this, although it's useful in thinking about to plan your own life.

The paper's argument is that "ability should be largely equalized among those who graduate from similarly selective graduate program" - i.e. comparing Slippery Rock/Yale Law students to Yale/Yale Law students is apples to apples, as far as motivation goes.

Anonymous wrote:As for your main point, it would be interesting to compare top tier undergrad admits who matriculated elsewhere and then attended top tier grad to Tier 1/Tier 1 grads. That would tease apart effect and selection.


Agree that would be interesting.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 10:42     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For JDs, only true to the extent that top colleges place much, much better in law schools. For lawyers, the ONLY thing that matters is where one went to law school, period.

This is very, very true.


But tier 1 and tier 2 grads clean up in tier 1 law school admissions.


So do the so-called tier 3 schools: the big state universities and such. What they call tier 4 is where the problem is. And my guess is the people that go to tier 4 schools their for cost (close to home) and can not afford law school or academics (bad students), and could not get into a tier 1-3 school. T


Usually they're provincial and dull and scared of aggressive competition.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 10:36     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.


People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.


The trolling here is rather sad. The program I am associated with has a selectivity of about 10% and it is discussed often on this board as an "elite" school. I'm sorry if my opinion (which is mine, but based on experience with an increasingly large number of PhD students) offends you, but it's not irrelevant.


Not only do I find you offensive, but I believe you are ignorant. I am amazed that you are allowed to teach at what you call an elite school. You are part of the problem.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 10:36     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:The problem I have with the paper is he is saying 1) there significant difference in tier 4 and tier 1 schools in terms of income. Ergo, it matters where you go. With the focus on the tier 1 schools.

As a side note, he mentions tier 2 and tier three do just as good as tier 1.

And then there is the classification of schools: the SLAC's are tier 2. What about the smaller private non-SLAC schools that are not tier 1, for example the private engineer schools that are a step down from MIT, such as RIT, RPI, Carnegie-Mellon, Hopkins, etc.

Tier three? UCAL Berkeley is third tier? UVA? Georgia Tech?

by authors definition, any state school is lower than Vasser. Vasser is a good school. So is William and Mary.

In the US News tier-ing, their Tier 1 would include the authors tier 1-3.

Tier 4 are the schools with issues. But, it is rare that someone would cross shop a tier 1-3 school with a tier 4 school.


+1 I read this as it matters if you went to a Tier 4 school, but as long as you are in Tier 1-3, the specific school doesn't matter as much as what you do there. Tier 1-3 is a HUGE range of schools. A student aiming for Tier 1 is very unlikely to end up at Tier 4 but this definition.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 10:31     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
The problem I have with the paper is he is saying 1) there significant difference in tier 4 and tier 1 schools in terms of income. Ergo, it matters where you go. With the focus on the tier 1 schools.

As a side note, he mentions tier 2 and tier three do just as good as tier 1.

And then there is the classification of schools: the SLAC's are tier 2. What about the smaller private non-SLAC schools that are not tier 1, for example the private engineer schools that are a step down from MIT, such as RIT, RPI, Carnegie-Mellon, Hopkins, etc.

Tier three? UCAL Berkeley is third tier? UVA? Georgia Tech?

by authors definition, any state school is lower than Vasser. Vasser is a good school. So is William and Mary.

In the US News tier-ing, their Tier 1 would include the authors tier 1-3.

Tier 4 are the schools with issues. But, it is rare that someone would cross shop a tier 1-3 school with a tier 4 school.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 10:07     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
I think the upper class supporting the upper class is alive and well in the top tier schools. Once in awhile talent breaks through. And it seriously depends on the field. Comparing engineering to investment banking is apples to rabbits.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 09:55     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For JDs, only true to the extent that top colleges place much, much better in law schools. For lawyers, the ONLY thing that matters is where one went to law school, period.

This is very, very true.


But tier 1 and tier 2 grads clean up in tier 1 law school admissions.


So do the so-called tier 3 schools: the big state universities and such. What they call tier 4 is where the problem is. And my guess is the people that go to tier 4 schools their for cost (close to home) and can not afford law school or academics (bad students), and could not get into a tier 1-3 school. T
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 09:50     Subject: Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For JDs, only true to the extent that top colleges place much, much better in law schools. For lawyers, the ONLY thing that matters is where one went to law school, period.

This is very, very true.


But tier 1 and tier 2 grads clean up in tier 1 law school admissions.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 08:40     Subject: Re:Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
The study's key claims seem to be based on evidence comparing Tier 1/Tier 2 with Tier 4. Tier 4 is fairly low (e.g., open admission regional universities, for-profit institutions) and Tier 1-2 is pretty widely conceptualized. When counselors say "it doesn't matter where you go to school for undergrad, you can make it up with a higher ranked grad degree" in strong public/private high schools I think they are often informally telling students that the nuances between various levels of SLAC and solid public institutions in Tier 1/2 won't matter as much as your individual drive/intelligence/work ethic etc. (And I believe there has been other research demonstrating that, though I don't have the individual drive/work ethic to locate it right now...).

The discussions I see on this site seem to be on fine distinctions among the top quintile of Tier 1. This author's study has nothing to say about that. I would say the vast majority of colleges mentioned on this site are Tier 1 or Tier 2 according to this author's definition.

Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 01:43     Subject: Re:Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
I work with people from a wide range of schools, both undergrad and grad and I think what you do with the opportunities you have while you are at school matters a lot more than the specific name brand.


The last paragraph of your comment is basically feel-good pablum, and contradicted by the evidence presented in the article.


Not really. The articles only says that the average income for Tier 1/Tier 1 is greater than Tier 2-3/Tier 1. It doesn't compare those who do well/network aggressively at Tier 2 schools to those who sit back and wait for the phone to ring at Tier 1s.

As for your main point, it would be interesting to compare top tier undergrad admits who matriculated elsewhere and then attended top tier grad to Tier 1/Tier 1 grads. That would tease apart effect and selection.
Anonymous
Post 05/03/2017 01:05     Subject: Re:Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think so much of this depends on your field. I went to strong state U for both undergrad and grad (different schools in different states) and have had a solid career in marketing research. If I'd wanted to go into a big name management consulting firm then, sure, the college brand would probably matter a lot more but I wasn't interested in doing that. I've been in my field for 20 yrs. Nobody cares where I went to school, never comes up. They do care about the firms I've worked at and the clients I've had. My first job out of undergrad was at a now well-known firm and I got it in large part because of the research project I did as my senior capstone at State U.

I hire interns for my firm now and the strongest ones over the past few years have been from big state U's. I've hired a couple from Ivy's and while they are very smart they have been weaker on the interpersonal skills. One, a Penn grad, got all pissy about having to do menial grunt-work stuff that she didn't think she should have to do because she went to Penn (seriously, she said that to me, her supervisor!). I've met plenty of lovely Penn and other Ivy grads and have great friends who went to Ivys, but as a hiring manager I do now come at interviewing Ivy grads with a particular focus on screening for that egotistical attitude. It definitely exists at the "Tier 1" schools to a greater degree than at Big State U.

I work with people from a wide range of schools, both undergrad and grad and I think what you do with the opportunities you have while you are at school matters a lot more than the specific name brand.


There is a school of thought that graduates of "good, but not elite," big state schools actually make better low/mid level employees than grads of elite schools. They are used to being a number, getting work done with minimal personal attention from supervisors and have a lower sense of entitlement.

I am not sure where this "school of thought" comes from. I think the credentialization of our economy is increasing, but what is certainly striking is how many CEOs are from state schools or lower tier schools.

According to Fortune magazine, the Fortune 500 CEOs went to 220 different colleges. Of those, these are the most represented (in order):
- Miami University (Ohio)
- Stanford
- Princeton
- Wisconsin
- Notre Dame
- West Point
- Texas A&M
- Penn State
- Cornell
- Harvard