<p>
Well, that may “often” be true, but it’s my observation that some people really are noble enough to choose jobs that don’t pay as well as other jobs they could get because they believe in the value to the public of the work involved.</p>
<p>
As if there is no connection? Top universities offer great scholars in many fields, generous funding for undergraduate research, and an impressive array of resources and facilities, all of which are extremely useful for someone applying to graduate school. </p>
<p>Some PhD programs are pretty egalitarian, especially some of the most common ones. Engineering doesn’t seem to be picky about colleges, for instance, and many of the sciences as well. For many others, it can absolutely make a difference. My own department and the three other departments with which I work closely are absolutely packed to the gills with graduates of top schools, as they’re the only ones who had sufficient background and preparation to get in. </p>
<p>If you want other perspectives…
</p>
<p>@Erin’s Dad</p>
<p>I read your post, but not the Brookings’ – and I’m skeptical of much of their “research” in any event, due to their inordinate liberal biases – study. The concern I have with the conclusion is one of recruiting, professionally certainly, but even postgraduate (although, to a considerably reduced degree).</p>
<p>To illustrate, x and y are identical twins, their secondary school records, standardized tests scores, and everything else are exceptionally similar. However, x attends undergraduate school at an elite National Research University, while his brother matriculates at one of the entirely reputable Big Ten universities. Here, too, their achievements are essentially identical. However, the enterprises who recruit at Stanford, Dartmouth, Cornell, Notre Dame, et al differ appreciably from those who interview at Purdue, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, and so forth. I don’t doubt that – in time, and a consider amount of it – the two twins MAY regain parity (promotions, job changes, postgraduate education, and much more). However, I am reasonably sure they will likely begin on quite different tracks-- and, often, the professional track one takes initially may principally determine the final destination.</p>
<p>I am NOT sure the foregoing “feelings” are correct, and I would appreciate your opinion(s). </p>
<p>I probably agree with everything you’ve said. It’s been a long time since I read the report but I believe they normalized for occupation, so that would immediately correct some of that initial career disparity. It does seem to negate some of the Ivy love that people have. Certainly if you want to go into IB the Ivies are probably where you want to be (not withstanding the whole question of whether IB benefits society). But it’s all YMMV.</p>
<p>
Quite the contrast from the people I’ve encountered. The presidents, VPs & directors in several different companies I’ve worked for got their undergraduate degrees from State U. They probably all earn 7 figures. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether and how much that matters depends on the major and career direction. Finance and consulting are generally regarded as preferring more elite schools. Engineering may be a different story – Dartmouth may be too small and out of the way to be that attractive to engineering recruiters, for example.</p>
<p>It’s the latter. The resources argument - “Harvard gives students the resources to succeed” - is complete bunk. Harvard has so many resources because almost every attending student draws on them. At a large state university, a large share of kids are there for their degree and little else. I think something like 80% of Yale’s science majors do undergraduate research, but I guarantee if a kid passed up Yale for Penn State, they’d still get those research opportunities because although there are fewer projects running, a far lower percentage of the student body wants to participate / is qualified.</p>
<p>A better argument would be networking, but what is the value of connections? Half the kids at these schools are full pay. They could take full tuition scholarships, invest 20k a year travelling to conferences in their chosen field, and still save 80k on their degree. For lower incomes there is an actual benefit but unfortunately these kids are underrepresented despite efforts otherwise.</p>
<p>For further evidence, take a look at the winners of Rhodes Scholars. The list is Ivy dominated for sure, but exceptional kids are proving every day that it doesn’t matter if they go to the U of Colorado or Princeton. (And let’s not forget the risk of getting swallowed by the crowd at an Ivy. Half the science majors at Princeton are bringing home under a 3.12, and they’re not scrubs).</p>
<p>I think it is almost funny that this debate is so prevalent, but private vs. public high schools get almost no airtime. The same arguments apply across the board. The difference? Most parents missed the boat on private schools and don’t have time to fuss in hindsight. They do the best with what they have and their kids turn out at the same caliber as the private school ones.</p>
<p>more about what you’d do I guess. </p>
<p><a href=“Why Did I Say "Yes" to Speak Here? | Malcolm Gladwell | Google Zeitgeist - YouTube”>Why Did I Say "Yes" to Speak Here? | Malcolm Gladwell | Google Zeitgeist - YouTube;
<p>Doesn’t matter where you go, only the best become “successful”.</p>
<p>If you have the right qualities to be successful it won’t matter where you go to school. Someone who is predisposed for success will likely show qualities by their senior year and go on to an elite university. At a top university they will only build on their skills with the vast resources, network opportunities, and culture provided. </p>
<p>These people can still be successful going to a state school. They will rise to the top and have many opportunities available to them. However, lets say a fairly average person goes on to their big state school versus going to Harvard. Its hard to argue that the experience they receive at Harvard will be better than that at State U. Elite universities have a greater culture of success than other schools. A lot of people at state schools might be looking for a satisfying life with their degree and achieve their own vision of success. I bet you that more truly groundbreaking individuals will come from elite universities though.</p>
<p>@warblersrule: Wrong way to look at it, IMO. Right way to look at it if you want to be tenure-track faculty is–
- Determine what the top schools in your discipline of interest are.
- Determine what paths can get you there.</p>
<p>It certainly seems that the more your ability can be measured in a field, the less it seems to matter what undergrad you went to. This is true in the working world as well. So consulting and law are probably the most prestige-conscious (and stuff like marketing and media are close) but finance is less so (because ultimately, PNL rules over all) and civil engineering is not-at-all.</p>
<p>Even the top business and econ schools are willing to pluck folks who show high potential from anywhere.</p>
<p>As for top math PhDs coming from the top undergrads, that’s more a function of math aptitude being easily measurable from a relatively early age, and with fin aid at HYPSM being so generous, it would be shocking if they did not capture a good chunk of the American kids best at math. However, if you are good, UChicago’s math PhD program will take you in even if you attended OU on scholarship.</p>
<p>Finally, in your examples, you’re mixing and matching. A school can be terrific in a field while not being a (private) elite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was in college, there were math majors who were quite brilliant at math… but probably very unattractive in a social sense to elite school interviewers. Some may also have been academically too lopsided (i.e. their record in English, history, etc. may pull their overall GPA down enough that elite schools won’t admit them despite their math achievements).</p>
<p>HYPSM surely do get many math superstars, but there are surely many others whose non-math attributes and achievements would put them out of the running for admission there.</p>
<p>
Should a college’s resources be dismissed out of hand? Michigan’s paleontology museum, the Fogg at Harvard, the Oriental Institute at Chicago, the primate center at Duke, the anthropology museum at Penn, Scripps at UCSD…all are examples of unique, world-renowned institutions that produce cutting edge research and many internship, classroom, and research opportunities. Does a student not benefit from being able to utilize such resources? Would there be no effect on a student’s education, career networking, or graduate school application? </p>
<p>
Berkeley has more students with high GPAs and test scores (in raw numbers) than Harvard…and yet it has produced an extremely unimpressive total of 5 Rhodes scholars in the last 50 years. Harvard has produced more Rhodes scholars than that in a single year. (Note that Stanford is the only real competition whatsoever within Berkeley’s region, whereas Harvard competes with numerous other elite colleges.) The explanation is that Harvard puts a tremendous amount of effort into recruiting good applicants, couching them through the process, connecting them with past winners, etc. Fellowship advising at the UCs in comparison is extremely poor. </p>
<p>To date I’ve attended 4 universities and taught at two others. Fellowship and career advising varies drastically among them. It’s utter nonsense to suggest that only graduates from top schools are successful in life. Is it nonsense to suggest that top schools make it easier to be successful in life? No, I don’t think so. (It should be noted that I consider both Harvard and Berkeley elite universities.)</p>
<p>
On the contrary, that’s been discussed quite a bit. There’s currently a rather lengthy thread on precisely that topic in the Parents’ Forum. </p>
<p>Students at elite high schools do get a leg up. They have superior counseling, more rigorous classes, and surprising extracurricular opportunities. To pick a field I know well, Bob Ballard at URI has taken kids from his son’s prep school on oceanography cruises – how many high schoolers have access to those kinds of opportunities? </p>
<p>
Of course. No university is the best at everything, and you can find instances of good programs at universities VERY far down the pecking chain of national universities. In fact, I’ve attended one of those mediocre institutions. If you’re dead set on a particular field, they can be okay choices. </p>
<p>Where top schools differ is being relatively strong virtually across the board, including the funding, library facilities, advising, etc. to complement their faculty strength. (Here’s hoping nobody trots out the tired old attack on Harvard engineering yet again.)</p>
<p>It really depends on the student and how well they take advantages of the opportunities they have. Anecdotally speaking, one of my friends who was the salutatorian of his school turned down Georgetown University for political science in favor of American University on a Fredrick Douglas Distinguished Scholarship which includes full tuition. Through the program, he has since got to meet a bunch of cool people and had access to a bunch of resources that he may not have anywhere else. I think a smart student who will take advantage of opportunities and work hard will be successful anywhere, but sometimes certain schools will offer the “best” of their college which includes some incredible opportunities for their top students</p>
<p>@warblersrule:</p>
<p>Re: Pretty strong virtually across the board:
Depends on who you consider “top schools”. H&S (and M in the fields it cares about), OK. But Dartmouth engineering? STEM fields at Georgetown? JHU if you are interested in a career on Wall Street? Vandy in most fields?</p>
<p>In terms of breadth of strength across departments, I daresay Cal and UMich beat or at least match most of the schools that people consider private elites (and a few more publics are close).</p>
<p>Here’s my thought: the top half of the students at Harvard, in terms of academic ability, drive, etc., would probably be just as “successful” after attending many other less selective colleges–although they might be doing different things. The bottom half of the Harvard class, however, probably does better at Harvard, because even the weakest students at Harvard get very good opportunities.</p>
<p>No one succeeds alone - and the one thing that elite schools are good at it is plugging people into existing networks of people who can help you succeed in ways that you would not otherwise have access to. That is why although the future of higher education may be in something like MOOCs for the masses, Harvard, Williams, even Berkeley will never be replaced by the on-line world - they can’t replace the networks built by living and studying for four years with the most intense group of people you will ever meet in your life. Going to meetings and conferences can’t replace it, meeting online can’t replace it, even working in the same company can’t replace it - those are all just supplements to the network you build during that fundamental four year block at the start of your adult life. Sure, you can build a network outside the elite college experience, but it’ll take years and not be as “plugged in” as the one you got by going to a top school.</p>
<p>Let’s also use the wisdom of crowds - parents have been sending their kids to these elite schools for years and more and more try to do so every year. They aren’t fools - they must be getting results for their money, otherwise the craze would eventually die down after a hundred years or so. In Europe, they have an even longer tradition than in America, and it’s still the same schools, over and over again. There is no guarantee if you go to one of these schools that you’ll take advantage of the opportunity to network and no one is saying you’re doomed to failure if you go elsewhere, but it should be pretty clear by now that the shortest path to success is often found by attending one of the elite schools, if you take advantage of what’s on offer there while you attend - and that’s more than what’s on offer in the classrooms.</p>
<p>The education can reproduced elsewhere, the networks cannot.</p>
<p>@MrMom62: Very insightful and very well articulated. </p>
<p>I tend to believe that it is successful people that attend elite universities. However attending where the vasy majority of the other students are also successful tends to enhance the students experience. In addition connections made at those schools can benifit your professional advancement & opportunities for years to come. </p>
<p>
I agree completely. But since people tend to assume that if a person goes to Harvard, that person must have done so on merit, a better filter is necessary.
If I really need to know, I would focus on the SAT …failing that, the major. This way I greatly reduce my chance of being fooled.
No doubt it is the folks in the bottom half that really “benefits” from a Harvard education. </p>