<p>Good points cpt and qwerty I tend to get myopic on these forums as they tend to be so focused on traditional kids attending college between 17-22. But still tend to agree with the original post that outcome is not solely based on selectivity of the admissions process. I’ve said it before but people ascribe attributes to things that fit their particular decision making framework.</p>
<p>
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
-Will Rogers</p>
<p>Colleges and universities offer options on a variety of levels, depending on programs offered and their selection criteria. The quality of teaching can be quite variable as well – I learned early on in my own college career that the credentials & fame of the professor had no correlation whatsoever with quality of instruction. I entered college looking at the course catalog and thinking how cool it would be to study with the famous prof. Dr. A, or nobel-prize winning Dr. B. I emerged having discovered that some of my best profs were adjuncts or untenured lecturers – the same type of people who also get jobs teaching at community colleges and low-prestige 4-year-colleges. </p>
<p>I do think that the elite schools offer a wonderful array of opportunities, but not all students take advantage of those opportunities. There is also a wonderful array of opportunities available at many less selective colleges and public U’s – and again, some students who are less prone to take advantage of what is available than others. As to the students, its not a matter of ability – its a matter of personality and attitude. </p>
<p>I also think its really impossible to compare outcomes among students with different outcomes and majors. How do you possibly compare the educational outcome of a chemistry major with a classics major? Both majors require very challenging course work – but unless the school has a strong core requirement, its possible that those students can begin and end their academic careers without taking a single course in common.</p>