@VMT I do not disagree that hiring practice are not impacted by name but I do not think that a prestige choice works in your favor 100% of the time.
You guys, you know how Andy Barnard on The Office went to Cornell? And how no one actually cared? And his boss Michael Scott went to, um…nowhere… because he lost all his college tuition money in a pyramid scheme? And nobody knows where (the actual smartest guy )Jim went but everyone assumes he went to college and it probably WAS East Swampy State? But then in the last season, Andy became the boss and it was kind of fitting? I think it’s kind of like that most places…
@gearmom (re post #38):
I fundamentally disagree with your post, due to one immensely critical flaw: basically, it’s entirely untrue. You virtually premise that almost all “prestige” institution graduates are sure to be “a tad arrogant,” that they are unable to “peacefully coexist” with a wide range of people, that they are not “fluent” with “mere mortals,” that they are almost certain to “tick off” the guys on the shop floor, and so on and so forth. It’s all very cute and enjoyable to read. However, the fundamental problem is it’s essentially baseless and derogatory stereotyping, just as false, unjustified, and prejudiced as racial, religious, or ethnic categorizations.
Certainly, there are lots of jokes and maxims about “Harvard men” (etc.), much as there are about Poles, or Italians, or Afro-Americans, or Jews. However, they are ALL as malicious and as they are inaccurate.
I’d believe I attended a “prestige” university for both my Bachelor’s and my MBA degrees. I was able to do so ONLY because I competitively won Navy scholarships that paid for everything (and compensated me for attending, as well). Incidentally, I repaid America’s taxpayers with decades of tough, demanding service at sea, overseas, in combat, and in truly challenging and unpleasant – 80 hour weeks were absolutely routine – jobs in DC.
My family was decidedly middle class (if that). My father (born in 1915) was an FBI Special Agent and my mother (born in 1921) was a public elementary school teacher (I mention these years simply becuase civil service salaries are considerbale greater now), money was always a SERIOUS issue, and my brother and I were the first in our family to attend non-commuter colleges that charged us tuition (my dad received degrees from NYU on a full baseball scholarship and my mom attended CCNY with no costs). The fact is – whether or not you choose to believe it – I’ve always done VERY well in “peacefully coexisting,” in “fluency with mere mortals,” in getting along very well with the guys on the shop floor (or the classroom, the ship’s deck, the Marine’s Barracks , the athletic field, the barroom, the engineering “bullpen,” the Boardroom, or the . . . ). This has been a true forte for 50+ years.
Far more important, I was pretty much typical in college and professional school; the people you lampoon and disparage were the distinct minority. Of the, perhaps, 15 percent who – at that time, and we were all VERY young – may have conformed to your stereotype, I’d wager that probably 80 percent had their arrogance deflated within a couple years of graduation . . . life certainly works that way. But I suggest that those 15 percent and 80 percent estimates are not too removed from what one would find at 90+ percent of America’s four-year colleges. The fact is, a LOT of kids are darn cocky, conceited, egotistical and self-centered. One does not have to be enrolled in (or to have graduated from) a USN&WR top-fifty National Research University or LAC to be quite Narcissistic and vain.
Well, you’ve had your fun. However, the overriding questions from post #36 remain:
-
- Were there no major, pervasive and widely-acknowledged advantages to matriculating at the most-competitive universities, wouldn’t everyone simply attend East Swampy: it’s easier to be admitted, it’s less expensive, it’s less academically difficult and competitive, and it just may be more fun?
- Yet, generation after generation, very bright individuals (and their families) work diligently and make profound sacrifices to attend the most demanding and selective institutions (not to suggest that some equally intelligent people do not opt for other higher educational alternatives). Why do they do so?
- Could it be that America’s long history has generally demonstrated that enduring, tangible, and extremely significant benefits accrue from their decisions to do so?*
You had your fun first but there are many reasons for the choices students and their families make. Choices which factor in limitations and development and other variables. There are not enough spots at prestigious universities for the worldwide population of intelligent students. Families have limited funds for many reasons. Students develop and peak at different rates. They may have other responsibilities. I’m sure that you are smart enough to already understand this.
Also factor in the changed landscape of colleges since your family sent you. Probably around the same time, my MIL’s family worked in mills but were able to send two children to Brown (they commuted). The world has greatly changed and competition is global. Costs have skyrocketed to the point where families have to incur great debt. Nevermind those who get in not based on individual quality but on who they are related to … celebrities… alumni.
@gearmom (re post #43 and #44):
Yes, and I have for many years, However, that still does not explain why attendance at the first-tier National Research Universities and LACs becomes more sought after and more competitive annually. I absolutely understand financial limitations, developmental constraints, geographic imperatives, other critical responsibilities, and – plainly stated – the fact that many people could not succeed (personally, intellectually, academically and socially) at the “most elite” institutions.
Great, remove all those individuals from this analysis. There is still a VERY large group – with none of these absolutely legitimate restrictions – who could attend East Swampy State (far reduced admissions selectivity, much lower costs, entirely less demanding and competitive academics, and probably appreciably more fun, too), yet they choose to make huge sacrifices and to devote incredible efforts to try to matriculate and to graduate from one of the “prestige” universities. Why?
You haven’t replied to my three questions in post #36 nor my question concerning youngsters’ arrogance in post #42. I’m beginning to believe you are avoiding responses to these important issues, simply because you don’t have persuasive answers that sustain your position.
P. S.: I’d wager that far less than one percent of students at the universities you malign are admitted entirely due to legacy or celebrity, and I define this as those who are not completely qualified based only on their documented records . . . it’s not sinful or inappropriate to attend an elite university if your parent is an alum or a well known individual – but you qualify based on your own performance – is it?
I’m multitasking. So much to sort through and I don’t really have time for this now. But better schools are being pursued because people want the best. The best of everything. Because they are extremely image conscientious and wish to wrap themselves in a prestige sheepskin. Unlike previous generations, people live far outside their means. Borrow today, pay tomorrow. We have people without savings or assets, trying to enroll their kids in 60K LAC for fluff majors because they deserve the best. They take on 100K in Plus loans because that is what has to be done. Not everyone fits this profile but we certainly have more wildly reckless choices being made because they have the ability to do so more today than ever before.
And I’m sure you have taken my posts in the same tongue and check manner of your address. i.e. East Swampy State. Will look at this again tomorrow.
No need, I believe we’ve exhausted the subject, at least for now. Have a good night.
@TopTier said “However, that still does not explain why attendance at the first-tier National Research Universities and LACs becomes more sought after and more competitive annually.”
Any first-year econ student could tell you that something being sought after doesn’t necessarily mean it’s superior, it just means it’s sought after. Yes, there is often a connection between quality and popularity, but it can and should never be taken as a given that those things go hand in glove.
@dfdbfb: Well, the collective wisdom of millions of individuals, spanning at least four American generations, and independently arriving at similar conclusions is exceptionally persuasive evidence. The probability that a “benefit - popularity” correlation does not exist, under these circumstances, is (I suspect) exceedingly minute. This, of course, does NOT suggest it is universal (other individuals value other things . . . for example, much of the population likely perceives no benefit in higher education, regardless of the source).
Or it could just be the effect of being first to market, or at least first to reputation. Remember, you’re talking about opinions that are driven by reputation here, and institutional reputation can be merited or not merited, but once in place it’s very hard to move.
TL; DR: Don’t trust popular opinion.
Not exactly pertaining to the precise question asked by OP, but related to the rest of the thread: Emperor’s New Clothes should be mandatory reading for all HS Juniors and reviewed often Senior year. Maybe even family reading. It should be analyzed within the scope of college search & selection with an emphasis on substance and fit. And then reread frequently throughout life. 