<p>@ucbalumnus: There are likely all sorts of factors in play. Did anyone mention the quality of education? Because I missed that. I certainly didn’t say anything about any school’s quality of education. Just laid out the outcomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so–but “% of instructors with the highest possible terminal degrees” is a common bragging point for schools against those that use industry practitioners/adjuncts instead of full-time faculty.</p>
<p>Realistically, If elite universities admitted everyone they would no longer be elite.</p>
<p>So in my opinion, elite people make elite Universities </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t assume that the door will never open again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Individually no, there is a lot of variation. But collectively a faculty of 1000 PhDs from top programs, all continuing to be engaged in original scholarly work, will provide better education than 1000 faculty without PhDs. </p>
<p>In terms of teaching, whether having PhDs teach is better is debatable when it comes to some subjects, but, at least when it comes to research universities, a major (for some, main) concern is producing ground-breaking research. And for some students, that matters.</p>
<p>There is a synergistic impact. Place a bunch of energized, bright, high achieving people together for a semester. Ideas incubate…energy percolates…they refuel and reinvigorate each other…and when at least a majority are also well connected to people in high places who can help make things happen…well thing happen. And when they graduate they are spread around to influential companies/jobs. So when one needs this that and the other thing, their peers are at the places that can provide that. </p>
<p>@sally305 wrote</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl wrote</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I had a sense that folks were making blanket statements about the way the world was (e.g., where you went to school doesn’t matter) that were partially accurate and partially not. My case suggests the blanket generalizations were clearly overgeneralizations. Not clear what you are picturing, but my clients are frequently senior execs at major global corporations or owners of smaller companies who have a strategically and/or financially important problem their people do not appear to be solving very well. They are in all kinds of industries (from pharma to oil and gas to fast moving consumer goods to fashion to defense to finance to various governments to semiconductors to hedge funds to utilities to health care to … . And they are in North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa (to a lesser extent). In the US, we have worked for big name companies and a few smaller, middle-American companies. Lots of industries; lots of countries; the only common thread is that we work on critically important things for most of our clients at a fairly high level of the clients. </p>
<p>If prospective clients don’t know me or our people from prior engagements or executive seminars at an elite school, then the fact that our resumes are strong – combined with our client list, or references and our description of some projects – helps give people confidence to engage us. I’m not suggesting that they are hiring us solely because of our educational affiliations, but it does validate choices when they are uncertain. In my experience, the value of the resume sparkle goes up with the square of the distance from the US (although my experience is that the number of universities who have big international pizzazz is much smaller than what we would call elites). </p>
<p>I am also not projecting that the same resume would make as much of a difference lower down in the same clients. In case you were thinking not about the industries of my clients but instead about my firm’s niche, we have competitors lower in the corporate food chain for whom, I suspect, the resume doesn’t matter nearly so much. Similarly, I don’t see middle-level engineers paying nearly as much attention to schools/resume. In medicine, when I have asked, people tell me that you have a better shot at the best residencies and fellowships and later in spots at the best research/clinical positions but may likely makes much less difference in clinical positions.</p>
<p>Some environments are rich environments and provide benefits that others don’t. Henry Kissinger spent 4.5 hours a couple of weeks ago with students from three graduate courses (one each from the schools of business, public policy and law) at Harvard. Extraordinary stuff. He probably doesn’t go to Slippery Rock State or UW-Eau Claire, to take two schools from @sally305’s list. And, kids at Stanford are approached to be part of startups at what is likely to be a higher frequency than other places. When they finish their second startup, their resumes open up opportunities that other kids don’t have. Being in an environment rich with opportunities may benefit those who take advantage of the opportunities for the rest of their lives. That is certainly at least in part an effect of the school as the kids at Stanford are likely no brighter than similar kids at Princeton who don’t get the same set of opportunities.</p>
<p>It would be equally foolish to attribute all of the effect to the school as opposed to the high quality of the students. High quality kids with drive and ability and training clearly succeed without going to august institutions. At the same time, high quality institutions will create opportunities for their students that others don’t get because of both horizon-setting and opportunity sets that are better and give people an early leg up in their careers. </p>
<p>I would say both, but mostly the latter. I know very few people who are mediocre students who go to mediocre schools that become wildly successful. Of course there are always exceptions, especially with IT people, entrepreneurs and such, but most successful people start as strong HS students that go to elite universities and work their way up. Of course, I think always a degree of luck, connections, and people skills factor into “success” and university.</p>
<p>When baking a good apple pie, it always helps to start off w the best apples. No amt of cinnamon & sugar will disguise a rotten apple.</p>
<p>Both. If those people were not craving for success, they wouldnt be famous or rich eighter. Just going to Harvard doesnt change anything, if you dont do more than it is required.</p>
Interestingly, I once talked to a guy who said that when he sees applicants with an Ivy League school on their resume, he is harder on them than others because he expects them to live up to their reputation.