<p>A Shocking Number Of The World's Rich And Powerful Attended Elite Colleges</p>
<p>I’m not surprised, but even those self made billionaires come from families who may not have been rich, but were still wealthy enough to pay for a good chunk of those college tabs out of pocket. These are not scholarship kids. </p>
<p>I went to Northwestern on scholarship. FANTASTIC school for a middle income kid like myself, but a lot of filthy rich kids go there, and in that circle, Northwestern is the “safety” for those who couldn’t get into HYP etc. These rich families have tight networks with other rich families and all of their businesses. This crowd doesn’t have to worry about applying for an internship or waiting for a job, because it’s waiting for them at their parents company or their dad’s friend’s company. An arrangement made over a round of golf. The internship turns into an executive position at said company or a partnership at the law firm and the next generation of networking begins. There’s a reason why most politicians and CEO’s have known each other for years before getting into office. And people like me…a girl from a middle income family who went to schools like Northwestern on scholarship…are only let in so far. That’s what this article is leaving out about the world’s rich and powerful. </p>
<p>I wish I was exaggerating but I’m not. I saw it everyday. I don’t think things have changed much in 20 years. Sensational articles like this do more harm than good. It’s also a poorly veiled attempt to justify going to private elite school when you can’t afford them. That payoff is not representative. </p>
<p>What a dumb article. “It turns out that roughly 38% of CEOs have attended elite colleges for the last two decades.” That is hardly a “shocking” number. Isn’t the more interesting statistic the 62% that went to “lesser” schools? </p>
<p>@sally305 exactly! that I think is far more releavent </p>
<p>I logged in to make the same comment, @sally305 . </p>
<p>The college does not make the rich and powerful, it is the fact they are rich and powerful that gets them accepted and/or enrolled (meaning they can pay tuition) in the elite schools.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, a great many kids (rich and not as rich) go into jobs similar to their parents. You see athletes, doctors, farmers, military types, etc. who follow in their parents’ footsteps. Some of that is networking, some of it is knowledge of the ‘ropes’ of that field. The same thing applies to colleges of all sorts. </p>
<p>My parents attended college as older adults and finished at or about the age of 50. My grandparents did not even have a HS education. Two of my siblings finished college in a ‘traditional’ sequence and eventually got an MS. I took the long route, but finished and my other sibling is an academic senior but is unlikely to ever actually get a degree. The next generation has done better as well. 6 college-age plus. 1 with MS from Stanford. 3 with their BS and the other 1 on a normal track toward graduation and 1 recently dropped out as a Junior, but is returning in the Fall. I expect that the younger end of that generation of our family will have similar results with most, if not all, completing a BA or BS in a 4-5 year frame after HS. We have learned a lot about the ‘ropes’ of college admission and success and pass that along as presumably will our progeny.</p>
<p>It takes a lot more than the right schools or the right “connections” to become a CEO or “rich and powerful.” You need some serious brains and more importantly be fiercely motivated. My observation is that those from the backgrounds described by @dracarys above, often lack the drive.</p>
<p>Yes, the world is rigged…above your level of achievement. Below that it’s fair, as those who earn less (than you) do so because they aren’t as able. Above your status, there is cabal that holds meetings at secret places (or on the golf course) to keep all the good stuff for themselves. </p>
<p>I’m sorry…I must call “bunk”. There is nothing on your degree that denotes “scholarship” recipient. * Able and ambitious people will succeed at whatever they choose.* That’s how you get picked to go to these schools.</p>
<p>There will always be people born into families with more income than yours. Thank God for that. All of the current whining about inequality ignores the unpleasantness that accompanies the alternative of ensuring that everyone will be the same. People need to wake up and let the clutch out on their brains. </p>
<p> “I’m shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here." </p>
<p>“Move along, keep moving, move along…nothing to see here.”</p>
<p>Some probably missed the point…</p>
<p>In the article:
"Based on census and college data, I estimate that only about 2% to 5% of all U.S. undergraduates went to one of these elite schools. "</p>
<p>And we have 38% CEO/rich/powerful people graduated from elite schools. This shows the elite schools do pick highly motivated and intelligent individuals. Much higher percentage of these individuals succeed.</p>
<p>If you calculated base on 5% went to elite schools:
Elite college index 0.38/0.05 = 7.6<br>
Other college index 0.62/0.95 = 0.65
7.6/0.65 = 11.69 (it is 12 folds)</p>
<p>Try calculated base on 2% went to elite schools:
Elite colleges index 0.38/0.02 = 19.00<br>
Other college index 0.62/0.98 = 0.63
19.00/0.63 = 30.15 (it is 30 folds)</p>
<p>Ugh. Shoddy research. He combines attendance at top undergrads with attendance at top grad b-schools and top law schools. When it comes to b-schools and law schools, the school you go to <em>definitely</em> makes a difference (as much if not most of the value comes from the signalling and networks). In fact, you can make a strong argument that b-schools outside the top 15 and law schools outside the T14 are not worth giving up a job for (and among b-schools, there’s a differentiation between H&S, the rest of the M7, and the rest of the top 15).</p>
<p>With regards to undergrad, it isn’t clear at all that full-pay at an elite (especially an elite that’s not at the very top) is a better choice than a much cheaper option 1 tier down.</p>
<p>@Findmoreinfo:</p>
<p>That’s a rather banal observation, though, and not terribly helpful to those on this forum. What would be more interesting is comparing how folks who got in to an elite and didn’t go do in life to those who did attend an elite.</p>
<p>And again, throwing grad schools where differences in brand, network, and recruiting opportunities matter a lot in with the pool of undergrad schools is shoddy research and thus doesn’t tell us much meaningful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that what research exists has shown that there is only an appreciable difference among low-income kids who have (or don’t have) the opportunity to attend elite schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not just tuition in many cases. Parental donations large enough to become “developmental admits” or otherwise gain significant admission preferences can help.</p>
<p>Is it really a shocking number? Is that how that should be described? Really?</p>
<p>So many issues with Mr. Wai’s study. </p>
<p>Many CEO’s went to state schools, but once they got placed on the “CEO track” their company sent them to an Elite (executive) MBA program. Wharton is a popular example (with classes taught every Friday and Saturday for 2 years…). Another example is Harvard’s Program for Leadership Development (PLD), which is a 6 month program. It’s hardly surprising that 38% of CEO’s attended an “elite” college. A more interesting stat would have been the number that attended an “elite” college as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Here is an article (form 2012) that gives more insight into how CEO’s are awarded degree’s by college.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/05/14/where-the-fortune-500-ceos-went-to-school”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/05/14/where-the-fortune-500-ceos-went-to-school</a></p>
<p>Harvard and Stanford both lead the way with 11 awarded undergraduate degrees. Then we have schools like Indiana University—Bloomington and Rutgers that both awarded 5 (Columbia and MIT each only awarded 3 undergraduate degrees), Go Rutgers! :)</p>
<p>“I went to Northwestern on scholarship. FANTASTIC school for a middle income kid like myself, but a lot of filthy rich kids go there, and in that circle, Northwestern is the “safety” for those who couldn’t get into HYP etc. These rich families have tight networks with other rich families and all of their businesses. This crowd doesn’t have to worry about applying for an internship or waiting for a job, because it’s waiting for them at their parents company or their dad’s friend’s company. An arrangement made over a round of golf.”</p>
<p>There’s no reason that NU should have any more or less a concentration of a FEW “filthy rich” kids compared to any other comparable elite school. (BTW, the ones who are the “filthiest rich” - you won’t know about.) You wouldn’t have had a scholarship at NU (or dorms, or science facilities, or whatever) if it weren’t for a few “filthy rich” families (thank you Crowns, Regensteins, Pritzkers, etc.) so I see no reason to begrudge them.</p>
<p>As for the networking – the exact same networks apply at “lesser” schools. You don’t think there are filthy rich kids at Ole Miss or Texas A&M whose parents are shaking hands and making arrangements? Of course there are. </p>
<p>^^^
I agree that you’ll find an “old boys’ network” at many universities that aren’t considered “elite,” but that isn’t really Dracarys’ point. The article implies that attending an “elite” university will provide you with networking opportunities that give you a leg up in the corporate world, and in my experience, Mr. Wai is hardly the only person who thinks the real value at “elite” universities is the networking possibilities. </p>
<p>Dracarys pointed out a flaw in this belief. Just because you attend the same university as the rich and powerfull doesn’t mean you’re going to have a meaningful opportunity to network with them. She wasn’t begrudging her wealthy classmates anything. </p>