<p>This is a really uplifting thread. Thanks!</p>
<p>Aw this is sweet, not too maudlin! "Talk to the people who take out the trash and be a big tipper. Small things mean a lot."</p>
<p>I'm sure seeing a lot of dumb logic in this thread.</p>
<p>The argument is basically:
If you go to a state school and work really hard, then you'll look better than someone who went to an Ivy and didn't work that hard.</p>
<p>While that may be true, it's a strange form of logic. What it's basically saying is that being in an Ivy WILL be helpful, just in a twisted, backwards sort of double negative way.</p>
<p>My belief is that going to a recognized and respected school will obviously help your chances in the job market, assuming you did well at the school.</p>
<p>It's about opportunity. The better schools will net you better opportunities than the worse schools.</p>
<p>There is a difference between schools whether you want to admit it or not. A person who goes to school in Chicago, LA, NY, etc will have much more opportunities than someone who went to Idaho (for example).</p>
<p>In the end, it matters more about the individual. You can't get too caught up into the name of the school and lose sight that it's up to the individual to achieve success.</p>
<p>Thank you for putting it so concisely. Well said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's break this down into simpler terms for those of us here who couldn't crack 600 on the SAT CR:
1. Ivies have smarter student bodies OVERALL than those of lesser schools because of high admissions standards.
so
2. Employers will give an Ivy League applicant the initial boost over the low-ranked state school grad before they read through rest of resumes, do interviews, conduct reference checks, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only if you assume employers are all starry-eyed over the Ivy League the way you are. DON"T YOU GET IT? Many employers are local flagship and "unimpressive" (in quotes) grads themselves! They aren't all FROM the Ivies! Really, believe it or not, people who aren't Ivy grads work in, run and own businesses -- even successful ones! </p>
<p>
[quote]
3. The student with the less prestigious degree can still easily get the job if he has a stellar GPA, good work experience, strong leadership skills, etc. over the Ivy Leaguer who hasn't performed well relatively speaking.
but also
4. Keep in mind that the Ivy League student had a tougher curriculum and smarter kids to deal with overall therefore the employer will cut him some slack that he wouldn't for the other kid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes to your first point, no to your second. No one in the real world is going to "cut the Ivy Leaguer any slack because he was in with brighter kids." </p>
<p>
[quote]
5. After the initial job hiring, the Ivy League kid and the state school kid are on the same level if they become coworkers and want to move to the next level in the company, so that will depend on the hard work that both candidates put in from there on out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely. That's the bottom line. Ivy et al opens doors more easily, but it's up to the person to walk through them, or not. </p>
<p>And no one cares about the high qualifications of the other kids <em>surrounding</em> a prospective employee. No one goes, "Oh, Johnny went to Harvard, so he was surrounded by smarter people than Jimmy who went to State U." They're not hiring the surrounding people, so it's immaterial.</p>
<p>
Uhh, so you would choose an Ohio State job applicant who had a 3.9 over the Princeton applicant with a 3.4? Real people don't think the way you do. Unless the Ohio State grad had stellar work experience as well, most employers would still pick up the Princeton grad as long as he/she had strong character, good interviewing skills, seemed to be a right fit for the job, etc. There is a defined pecking order in most industries and companies and Princeton is right at the top. It will be especially apparent if the interviewer is an alum of a top school, which means he is more likely to look upon grads of prestigious schools more favorably.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with EAD. The real world does work this way. Going through the gauntlet of admission to the Ivies, then doing the work there does have value to employers & grad schools. Opens doors that are not opened to other levels/tiers. Thats life. Once in the door performance rules. If you are savvy from a regular college you can do just as well.</p>
<p>But you guys are only arguing about employment opportunities after graduating from undergrad right? My graduate school hypothetical situation still stands okay?</p>
<p>Right. Except that its really really hard to get in the top grad schools. You need to stand out with great scores/grades/experience. Focus, be determined and it will happen! People always say that they'll go to a top grad school but then there is the reality of getting in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uhh, so you would choose an Ohio State job applicant who had a 3.9 over the Princeton applicant with a 3.4?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sigh. Those aren't the only 2 data points that I have with each job applicant. I also have how they came across in the interview and how they responded to my questions, how they presented / carried themselves, do they seem interested in my field or are they just there for their paycheck, do they seem like go-getters, do they offer imaginative and creative answers to the cases I give them or do they seem like they are in-the-box thinkers ... None of which is reflected or captured by the words "Princeton," "OSU," "3.9" or "3.4" on the resume.</p>
<p>BTW, in a field I"m very familiar with, a Univ of Georgia grad program is <em>the</em> qualification to have and says that the person is truly interested in this particular field -- and that could potentially outshine an Ivy grad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It will be especially apparent if the interviewer is an alum of a top school, which means he is more likely to look upon grads of prestigious schools more favorably.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you vastly overestimate what % of hiring managers and employers in this country are grads of prestigious schools themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's what you and everyone else who is making the same argument is missing. Students who go to a top school have ALREADY proven that they can work their butt off just by getting into a top school!!! Think about it. You beat John Doe on every test you took in high school, scored 250 points higher on the SAT, attained more extracurricular honors, were more engaged in your community, was more knowledgeable about world events, forged great study habits and time management skills, etc. You attend Harvard and John Doe attends his state flagship school.</p>
<p>Now what you're all saying is that John Doe can be just as successful as me if he works his butt off in college. I agree with this assessment but what's the chance of that actually happening? If he didn't work hard and develop important study skills in high school, why would he START TRYING in college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you're assuming the reason John Doe "only" attended state u was that he wasn't "trying hard enough" to be like you. </p>
<p>I live in an upper middle suburban area where there <em>isn't</em> a lot of Ivy/elite pressure at all. UIUC and even the directionals (NIU, etc.) <em>are</em> just seen as Plenty Good Enough, even for the really bright kids. I happen to disagree with that assessment, personally, but nonetheless -- if John Doe grew up in a milieu where everyone attended state and he did too, who are you to say that he obviously wasn't bright or hard-working? You also don't know John Doe's particular circumstances. Maybe he had an ill parent and needed to stay close to home. Maybe he had 10 younger siblings and couldn't spend the family fortune on his own college. Maybe, just maybe, John Doe had other things going on in his life which precluded him from the all-consuming focus on getting into an elite at age 17 or 18 -- which, btw, is a LUXURY. All you can conclude is that John Doe <em>didn't</em> go to an elite. You cannot conclude on an individual basis that John Doe is "dumber" or "less hardworking" or won't be as valuable of an employee to your company or won't provide interesting insights to your business. Yes, you could conclude that students at state U <em>in the aggregate</em> may be "dumber" (if you want to measure by SAT scores) than students at the elite but that says nothing about John Doe individually.</p>
<p>
[quote]
r2dtoo, my father is the former CEO of a publicly traded company (and soon to be of another), and said exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is that outside a couple specific areas, no one really cares.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And to the whole "rich" thing ... man, I know tons, and tons, of really rich people who don't have degrees, or have them from "unimpressive" schools, because they built their <em>own</em> networks. Go-getter and hard worker and people skills go quite far in life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but the fact that person went to an ivy league will stand out on his/her resume. You CANNOT deny that fact.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The undergrad name on my resume stopped being relevant to my JOB success the day after I took my first job at age 21. It's been very relevant to my LIFE in terms of friendships formed, memories, etc., but that's a different story.</p>
<p>Here too (FL)the flagship & local state univ hire locally-- not from Ivys. No one cares about that here. You'd do even better if you stayed in state for many top jobs & grad school spots. Incredible alumni love & pride. However if you want to work somewhere else, another state or city far from here then having a top college degree is helpful to differentiate yourself. Still many FL kids that I've heard talk about going to a top grad school can't get in or close to them. Just be aware of this.</p>
<p>"Still many FL kids that I've heard talk about going to a top grad school can't get in or close to them. Just be aware of this."</p>
<p>You can remove the word "FL" above and the statement still rings true.</p>
<p>I don't think it matters as much as a lot of people here seem to make it out. I know for me (and a lot of others who won't be willing to admit it) what attracted me to top schools was parental and peer pressure. It wasn't fit or even academic prowess. Like others, I fell into the hype that you must go to a top school if you're pretty gifted. I honestly don't think I would have looked at them if not for parental or peer pressure, and if I did, it wouldn't be because it would help me get a job (found out what I-banking was the admissions process last summer). I think, to be perfectly honest, the major reason Ivy league undergrads seem to be more successful is that the admissions process selects for people with qualities that lead to success: intelligence, passion, character, talent, and lastly, learning/mastering the rules of the game. I think most of these kids would be very successful regardless of where they went. I would say that perhaps the only advantage to going to these schools would be the "wipe your ass" attitude they take towards ensuring your success and the fact that you'll be surrounded by other bright people like yourself 24-7. But, again, you'll meet bright people at almost any reasonably sized college and chances are you don't need someone to "wipe your ass" for you if you've been so successful thus far. Even these "endless opportunities" people talk about can be found at a state flagship provided you're talented enough (which you should be if you can get into an Ivy or ivy comparable) My advice still would be for people to attend the best school they can provided they can afford it. Not for the job prospects, but the fact that it would likely make you, your parents and perhaps your community very proud which always feels good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here too (FL)the flagship & local state univ hire locally-- not from Ivys. No one cares about that here. You'd do even better if you stayed in state for many top jobs & grad school spots. Incredible alumni love & pride.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hawkette has made the point that she believes that if you wish to remain in Texas, UT will get you farther than Princeton, and I suspect she's right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And to the whole "rich" thing ... man, I know tons, and tons, of really rich people who don't have degrees, or have them from "unimpressive" schools, because they built their <em>own</em> networks. Go-getter and hard worker and people skills go quite far in life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, my dad just flat-out couldn't afford to go to Wharton (where he wanted to go), and even worked all throughout college to afford Temple. Regarding his classmates who did go to Wharton or other more prestigious schools, guess who is more successful? Yeah...</p>
<p>There are three risks I can identify from this thread regarding having an Ivy on the resume and the actual Ivy experience:</p>
<p>1) An employer in real jobs (other than ibanking, VC, consulting) has had bad experiences with prior Ivy hires (attitude mostly) and has a bias AGAINST Ivy grads.. the whole preppy/spoiled stereotype</p>
<p>2) The Ivy grad has not had to develop the (external) networking skills critical to real life, 2nd job onward job success. He has always played within the rules, within the box, painted by numbers, and now, in the real job world (post 1st job) doesn't have the networking skills that non-Ivy kids were FORCED to develop to get their 1st job.</p>
<p>3) The Ivy experience has fostered (in the actual applicant, not prior ones referenced in point #1 above) an arrogance and sense of entitlement that is a turnoff to bosses and coworkers.</p>