Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Disagree. For the business field, the school name is pretty important.
I have one kid in the STEM field and one kid in business.
We placed more emphasis on the fit for the STEM kid, but were more selective about the business program/school for the kid in business.
A Better program and school certainly get you better opportunities(internship and initial work experience) for the business field.

The STEM kid can still do fine at a decent school, but better go to a better school for the business field.

I disagree - and I hire for a living (including Fortune 500s). Only matters directly for first job. And high academic achievements and co-curiculars / internships at any top 100 can give the right boost. I have hired a few top 10s and top 100s who couldn’t cut it. But most companies hire entry level anyways, so all the other factors way in.

which is very crucial

you can clearly see the difference in recruiter qualities at different levels of schools

Don't kid yourself.

But to invest everything / obsess for that…so many other paths to accomplish the same thing.

No my kid might have been lucky or something, but got accepted(REA) to a business school at a T20 college without too much stress, obsession or investing everything.
The kid didn't want to go to a more competitive and selcetive school than that, and feels fit right in. Doesn't want to go higher or lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this with a coterie of folks who are in government/non profit/writers, etc. They attended elite schools and cleave onto this as one of their key identifiers. I'm not talking school spirit, but dropping it a fair amount and distinguishing folks based on where they attended school. They are absolutely bonkers now about their kids attending same. And ones who attended school as full pay but are in jobs now that can't afford that really go off on how unfair it is. "Why should someone get that advantage?"

Of course, none of them were working for more equitable financial aid back in the day.

?? A majority of the GS-15s in my small agency went to state schools for undergrad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Disagree. For the business field, the school name is pretty important.
I have one kid in the STEM field and one kid in business.
We placed more emphasis on the fit for the STEM kid, but were more selective about the business program/school for the kid in business.
A Better program and school certainly get you better opportunities(internship and initial work experience) for the business field.

The STEM kid can still do fine at a decent school, but better go to a better school for the business field.

I disagree - and I hire for a living (including Fortune 500s). Only matters directly for first job. And high academic achievements and co-curiculars / internships at any top 100 can give the right boost. I have hired a few top 10s and top 100s who couldn’t cut it. But most companies hire entry level anyways, so all the other factors way in.

which is very crucial

you can clearly see the difference in recruiter qualities at different levels of schools

Don't kid yourself.

But to invest everything / obsess for that…so many other paths to accomplish the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be exhausting.

Agreed?

The thing that kills me about it is that kids are moving out of their parent's homes. They will not be at home. Parents have bragging rights, but the kid isn't at home. So all this energy and effort and expense is going to a kid who is not going to be in the house, not for most of the year. Often kids get internships during the summer and are gone, essentially, except for a few weeks here and there for vacation or weekends, but they no longer live at home.

Why the obsession with where your kid goes to college? You aren't going with him or her. And they'll never look back. Two of my kids have graduated from college, and I have two younger kids who are about to go to college. The older ones are on their own. They call every once in a while if they need something, but essentially day to day parenting is a thing of the past. We don't really know what they're up to because they dont tell us. They live their own lives. They dont' thank us for all the energy, attention love and money we've lavished on them.

I'm not saying don't do it, but obsessing about college is this sort of last gasp of parenting before they leave the nest, and it's overblown and sad.

My kids went to HYPSM and wow, I feel really good when I tell other parents about it, but so what? That happens maybe once a year now adays, and the rest of the time I feel sad that my kids' lives are far away from mine. I really have little contact with them relative to when they lived at home. That's normal and natural, and I should feel proud that they're so independent, but it makes me feel really sad.

Anyway, I'm not obsessing with the younger kids. They're going to college somewhere, period, and good for them. I want them to be happy, but that's it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Disagree. For the business field, the school name is pretty important.
I have one kid in the STEM field and one kid in business.
We placed more emphasis on the fit for the STEM kid, but were more selective about the business program/school for the kid in business.
A Better program and school certainly get you better opportunities(internship and initial work experience) for the business field.

The STEM kid can still do fine at a decent school, but better go to a better school for the business field.

I disagree - and I hire for a living (including Fortune 500s). Only matters directly for first job. And high academic achievements and co-curiculars / internships at any top 100 can give the right boost. I have hired a few top 10s and top 100s who couldn’t cut it. But most companies hire entry level anyways, so all the other factors way in.

which is very crucial

you can clearly see the difference in recruiter qualities at different levels of schools

Don't kid yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Disagree. For the business field, the school name is pretty important.
I have one kid in the STEM field and one kid in business.
We placed more emphasis on the fit for the STEM kid, but were more selective about the business program/school for the kid in business.
A Better program and school certainly get you better opportunities(internship and initial work experience) for the business field.

The STEM kid can still do fine at a decent school, but better go to a better school for the business field.

I disagree - and I hire for a living (including Fortune 500s). Only matters directly for first job. And high academic achievements and co-curiculars / internships at any top 100 can give the right boost. I have hired a few top 10s and top 100s who couldn’t cut it. But most companies hire entry level anyways, so all the other factors way in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As always you want to be cautious about the both sides of the extremists

Ones who are obsessed with college ranking and/name
Ones who are saying you can just go to any no name mediocre school and it's all good and there's no difference.

Although I’m not hearing anyone saying go to any school / diploma mill. Instead, folks are saying things will be fine if they attend a top 150 school. But everyone here (OP who started the post about obsession) is hyper focused unnecessarily on top 50. Many great paths from other great schools outside of T50

so then what's wrong with the 151st school

It's also largely depends on the field of study/major.

Less popular the major, better go to a recognizable name brand school.

To me it seems helpless if one go to a shoole outside of T100 and major in pcychology, history, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Disagree. For the business field, the school name is pretty important.
I have one kid in the STEM field and one kid in business.
We placed more emphasis on the fit for the STEM kid, but were more selective about the business program/school for the kid in business.
A Better program and school certainly get you better opportunities(internship and initial work experience) for the business field.

The STEM kid can still do fine at a decent school, but better go to a better school for the business field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Disagree. For the business field, the school name is pretty important.
I have one kid in the STEM field and one kid in business.
We placed more emphasis on the fit for the STEM kid, but were more selective about the business program/school for the kid in business.
A Better program and school certainly get you better opportunities(internship and initial work experience) for the business field.

The STEM kid can still do fine at a decent school, but better go to a better school for the business field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As always you want to be cautious about the both sides of the extremists

Ones who are obsessed with college ranking and/name
Ones who are saying you can just go to any no name mediocre school and it's all good and there's no difference.

Although I’m not hearing anyone saying go to any school / diploma mill. Instead, folks are saying things will be fine if they attend a top 150 school. But everyone here (OP who started the post about obsession) is hyper focused unnecessarily on top 50. Many great paths from other great schools outside of T50

Anonymous wrote:It can be exhausting.

Agreed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Thanks and not surprised. A common path to the top in business is good grades in a decent school (#50-150) with good internship / work experience to get into a great grad program / MBA. Then all the other stuff must kick in to get to top. And, let’s not forget about the Executive MBAs like Darden, Duke, Harvard and more, that focus more on the latter than the undergraduate school’s strength

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the underlying report and it does not say that the various CEOs attended the schools as undergraduates. This is likely a combination of undergraduates plus all professional schools.

Just FYI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be exhausting.

Agreed?

The thing that kills me about it is that kids are moving out of their parent's homes. They will not be at home. Parents have bragging rights, but the kid isn't at home. So all this energy and effort and expense is going to a kid who is not going to be in the house, not for most of the year. Often kids get internships during the summer and are gone, essentially, except for a few weeks here and there for vacation or weekends, but they no longer live at home.

Why the obsession with where your kid goes to college? You aren't going with him or her. And they'll never look back. Two of my kids have graduated from college, and I have two younger kids who are about to go to college. The older ones are on their own. They call every once in a while if they need something, but essentially day to day parenting is a thing of the past. We don't really know what they're up to because they dont tell us. They live their own lives. They dont' thank us for all the energy, attention love and money we've lavished on them.

I'm not saying don't do it, but obsessing about college is this sort of last gasp of parenting before they leave the nest, and it's overblown and sad.

My kids went to HYPSM and wow, I feel really good when I tell other parents about it, but so what? That happens maybe once a year now adays, and the rest of the time I feel sad that my kids' lives are far away from mine. I really have little contact with them relative to when they lived at home. That's normal and natural, and I should feel proud that they're so independent, but it makes me feel really sad.

Anyway, I'm not obsessing with the younger kids. They're going to college somewhere, period, and good for them. I want them to be happy, but that's it.

This is a very profound post and it makes me sad.

Focus on maintaining an open relationship with your child so they want to visit you often or they allow you to visit them. This can be harmed in the pursuit of the T10 college, sometimes.

Anonymous wrote:As always you want to be cautious about the both sides of the extremists

Ones who are obsessed with college ranking and/name
Ones who are saying you can just go to any no name mediocre school and it's all good and there's no difference.