Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my experience, many education consultants in DC also have the same view as Mr. Bruni. In fact, I've even heard the Director of Admissions at a Big 3 make many of these same points.

Seems ironic, given how hard Big 3-type schools try to outplace so many of their students in HYPS-type schools.

That's because its what the parents think they're paying for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they have many, many paths to success

This is the part that always bugs me though.

OF COURSE there are many potential paths to success. But it sounds like you and Bruni would have people to believe that the odds of success are going to be exactly the same no matter which path you take.

So you really believe that the odds of success are the same if you go to an Ivy than if you don't? Bruni's thesis (Ivy degrees don't reliably predict success), even assuming for the sake of argument as true, doesn't answer this question.

"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." This was the finding of a couple researchers, Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger. One was, ironically, a Harvard grad and a current Princeton professor. So there's that.

This was a key finding: "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."

This matches the point Bruni makes in his excellent book. Perhaps the fixation with prestige is actually a positive marker in its own way. But the disparaging of schools outside the most prestigious is unfortunate. Because it ultimately doesn't matter nearly so much as many think. Sure, shoot for the elite schools. Just don't make it the be-all and end-all. There really is life outside the elite schools.

Now when you read the summary of the study, it does find that selective schools make a difference for these groups: black students, Latino students, low-income students and students whose parents did not graduate from college. Note: these represent some of what are called URMs and/or hooks when it comes to college admissions.

Link to story about the study:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they have many, many paths to success

This is the part that always bugs me though.

OF COURSE there are many potential paths to success. But it sounds like you and Bruni would have people to believe that the odds of success are going to be exactly the same no matter which path you take.

So you really believe that the odds of success are the same if you go to an Ivy than if you don't? Bruni's thesis (Ivy degrees don't reliably predict success), even assuming for the sake of argument as true, doesn't answer this question.

NP. I don't have any empirical evidence to prove this, but my own experience is that if someone has the credentials to get admitted to an Ivy, whether they actually go or not has little bearing on their post-graduate achievement levels. In other words, the reason Ivy graduates tend to be more successful than graduates from other schools is because those schools admit highly qualified applicants, not because the education that people get there is any better than what they'd get at top 25 SLACs and universities with a more low key environment.

Bruni does cite evidence that proves exactly this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they have many, many paths to success

This is the part that always bugs me though.

OF COURSE there are many potential paths to success. But it sounds like you and Bruni would have people to believe that the odds of success are going to be exactly the same no matter which path you take.

So you really believe that the odds of success are the same if you go to an Ivy than if you don't? Bruni's thesis (Ivy degrees don't reliably predict success), even assuming for the sake of argument as true, doesn't answer this question.

No, this is not Bruni's point. He is not arguing that every kid has just as much chance of success as any other, regardless of college. He is simply making the point that for bright, creative kids, going to an "elite" school is far less important than people think. This is a) because in some cases, the "elite" schools are just a poor "fit" for particular kids compared to some less "elite" schools, and b) because bright, creative kids tend to do well regardless of where they go to college. They do well because they are bright, curious, motivated and creative, not because of the brand name on their diploma.

Anonymous wrote:Only if you have a kid who is willing to choose friends based on what they will do for him in the future. Yuck.

That may be how you network, but that's certainly not the way I or most people I know from school do it.

Back in college and grad school, I made friends who seemed like genuine, kind people regardless of their future prospects or any quid pro quo. The fact that many of them ended up being successful (and valuable to my network) was an indirect benefit.

The point is that, at these so-called elite institutions, you end up with a great network whether you're angling for it or not. And most people that I knew were not.

As for the point that you can end up with these same networks in grad school or professionally, of course that's true. But they're developed years later and often not nearly as strong as those formed in one's teens or early 20s.

Anonymous wrote:You don't think there are incremental benefits of spending four years studying, socializing, networking etc. at a school with greater proportions of "highly qualified applicants" than at a school with fewer?

There might be some, but I don't think it's a big deal. You can get the same networking benefits in grad school or when you enter the workforce.

Anonymous wrote:You don't think there are incremental benefits of spending four years studying, socializing, networking etc. at a school with greater proportions of "highly qualified applicants" than at a school with fewer?

A couple points from Bruni's book on this. First, many colleges have honors level programs. Students in these programs access more enrichment opportunities and can take more rigorous courses. Second, there are many schools with unique specializations that address kids with specific interests. Participation in either of these initiatives is a compelling reason to look beyond the classic brand-name schools.

There are plenty of other great outcomes beyond those two examples of alternatives to the brand-name schools. I don't want to make this debate only about those two things (honors, specialization). But they seem to address your specific point.

Anonymous wrote:Only if you have a kid who is willing to choose friends based on what they will do for him in the future. Yuck.

I’m the PP who went to two Ivies. I have many accomplished classmates, some of whom are famous and some who are not. The majority are comfortably well-off, but most did not set the world on fire.

I agree that many Ivy grads tend to be conformist and somewhat risk-averse — they are not willing to fail — which makes them less likely to be game-changers. However, that risk aversion in high school and college is how they obtain the credentials that get them into Ivy League schools.

+1 I went to an Ivy and an elite NE boarding school. Most of my friends from both places are, as you say, well-off, but not doing anything extraordinary. Most of the interesting and successful people I know as an adult did not attend Ivies.

Only if you have a kid who is willing to choose friends based on what they will do for him in the future. Yuck.

I’m the PP who went to two Ivies. I have many accomplished classmates, some of whom are famous and some who are not. The majority are comfortably well-off, but most did not set the world on fire.

I agree that many Ivy grads tend to be conformist and somewhat risk-averse — they are not willing to fail — which makes them less likely to be game-changers. However, that risk aversion in high school and college is how they obtain the credentials that get them into Ivy League schools.

You don't think there are incremental benefits of spending four years studying, socializing, networking etc. at a school with greater proportions of "highly qualified applicants" than at a school with fewer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they have many, many paths to success

This is the part that always bugs me though.

OF COURSE there are many potential paths to success. But it sounds like you and Bruni would have people to believe that the odds of success are going to be exactly the same no matter which path you take.

So you really believe that the odds of success are the same if you go to an Ivy than if you don't? Bruni's thesis (Ivy degrees don't reliably predict success), even assuming for the sake of argument as true, doesn't answer this question.

NP. I don't have any empirical evidence to prove this, but my own experience is that if someone has the credentials to get admitted to an Ivy, whether they actually go or not has little bearing on their post-graduate achievement levels. In other words, the reason Ivy graduates tend to be more successful than graduates from other schools is because those schools admit highly qualified applicants, not because the education that people get there is any better than what they'd get at top 25 SLACs and universities with a more low key environment.

Anonymous wrote:they have many, many paths to success

This is the part that always bugs me though.

OF COURSE there are many potential paths to success. But it sounds like you and Bruni would have people to believe that the odds of success are going to be exactly the same no matter which path you take.

So you really believe that the odds of success are the same if you go to an Ivy than if you don't? Bruni's thesis (Ivy degrees don't reliably predict success), even assuming for the sake of argument as true, doesn't answer this question.

Anonymous wrote:So it's a parenting self-help book?

"Self-help" in the sense that parents (and kids) need to understand they have many, many paths to success. For those fixated on only a small set of acceptable schools, that's help.

Of course you can lead a horse to water...

So it's a parenting self-help book?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you jabbering about? Bruni's not trying to solve any problems in education.

I wasn't the one who first brought up problem solving. And if his book isn't trying to solve problems, then it's more pointless than I thought.

Bruni isn’t trying to solve problems in the education system. He’s trying to address parents’ anxiety about their kids needing to attend elite schools else be damned forever.

Seems worthwhile given the impact of that anxiety on kids.