<p>nspeds--you might want to learn about the studies that have shown those who could have gone to elite schools but chose to go to other schools do just as well in future salary terms.</p>
<p>The first was done at Princeton with another at Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you might want to learn about the studies that have shown those who could have gone to elite schools but chose to go to other schools do just as well in future salary terms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not the point, and you are unfairly limiting the scope of my argument in order to support yours.</p>
<p>Perhaps those who turn down Ivys are still able to maximize their opportunities and potential at a state school – largely becauase of their talent and motivation. I'm not denying that.</p>
<p>But let's compare, in "salary terms," how elite school students compare with state school students overall. Let's not restrict the scope of the latter to "state school students who could've gone to an elite school."</p>
<p>Moreover, it has been a claim of mine in this thread that elite schools provide students with more opportunities. I provided evidence for this from the posts of Alexandre, who once recruited for Goldman-Sachs.</p>
<p>Most of you guys are arguing that state schools are on par by limiting the scope of the date to be considered. When considering the overall data, acceptance to an elite school and attendance there has distinct advantages over that of choosing a regular school. Sure, the USNews can be accused of a bias or whatever, and we can all argue that the ranks may be distorted to an extend, so it's impossible to say, for instance, that Princeton is definitely better than Harvard; however, Harvard is ranked significantly higher than UMCP and UT, for instance. Harvard wasn't ranked so much higher because of prestige or because the editors woke up one day and said "naahhh, I think Harvard is better than UT by 40 or so rungs." Harvard is clearly superior to UT - Austin for reasons other than prestige, and USNews explicates them quite well. </p>
<p>We cannot use the USNews for precise information, sure. But for some semblance of which school is better overall than another, the USNews is a pretty good indicator: Harvard is better than UT – Austin, JHU is better than UMCP, and so forth. On the law school side, the precision of USNews increases significantly: most students from Harvard Law School and Yale Law School would agree that Yale Law School is clearly superior, even though Yale is #1 and Harvard is frequently #2.</p>
<p>Salary and smarts are postively related so any school with more high SAT students will do better on average. Not everyone even wants to work for GS or similar firms. The leading producers of Fortune 500 ceos are Wisconsin and Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not everyone even wants to work for GS or similar firms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You seem to be missing the point quite often:</p>
<p>
[quote]
it has been a claim of mine in this thread that elite schools provide students with more opportunities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether or not certain students want to work for GS or similar firms is irrelevant to whether those firms choose to recruit at a certain school.</p>
<p>Surprise, surprise, nspeds is a liar!</p>
<p>Highlights:</p>
<p>-He goes (or went) to some no name school in Houston
-He only got a 590 on the SAT Verbal section!!!</p>
<p>That just made my night haha. Oh yeah, nspeds, you have over 4,000 posts. Do you have a life outside of CC?</p>
<p>
[quote]
-He goes (or went) to some no name school in Houston
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I did. And then I transferred to Georgetown. If anything, it makes me more qualified for this discussion</p>
<p>
[quote]
He only got a 590 on the SAT Verbal section!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Apparently, the notion of retaking the SAT is beyond your mental capacities. Your investigation should've looked beyond my first couple of posts.</p>
<p>Do you want to compare college GPAs? Because I surely beat you in that category. (And in all respects, college GPA is more important since the SAT only predicts your first year of college performance... and my current GPA was earned at a university much more competitive and difficult than yours. I know, maybe you'll pull your socks up next semester and earn above a 3.4! Good luck;) Hahahahaha)</p>
<p>See, vyse, I'm actually very pleased. This demonstrates that you can do nothing better than personal attacks. :) Your intellectual inferiority is just manifesting itself in so many multifarious ways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This demonstrates that you can do nothing better than personal attacks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Says the person that's been attacking people's choices of schools and intelligence the entire thread? Of course.</p>
<p>For goodness sake, you can't even admit that you were mistaken about which school Vyes attends in one of your earlier posts. Not to mention that your entire argument against me is based on you taking my first post out of context.</p>
<p>I said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
My school is very highly respected in my region, I love the atmosphere, and is very ** highly recruited from in the areas I’m interested in living ** after I graduate so it was a no-brainer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and...</p>
<p>
[quote]
The notion that ** only top schools or ivies ** have great companies that come to the campus to recruit is…well…I’ll be nice and just say it’s wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To which you replied:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah... those Goldman-Sachs guys conducting interviews in our career centers... they're just imaginary people or something of the sort. The best you can say is "I’ll be nice and just say it’s wrong" because you have no factual evidence to substantiate your point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When exactly did I say that top companies didn't recruit at the top schools, again? Oh right, I didn't. </p>
<p>Also, did you ever have any proof what-so-ever that top companies don't recruit outside of the top 25 schools? Nope, didn't think so...you only pointed out what everyone already knows and acknowledges about them recruiting at higher rates from top schools. </p>
<p>It seems to me like you were just looking for a fight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Says the person that's been attacking people's choices of schools and intelligence the entire thread? Of course.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never attacked one's choice of school. And I only attacked your intelligence because of your seeming inability to make a coherent argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For goodness sake, you can't even admit that you were mistaken about which school Vyes attends in one of your earlier posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay... he attends another inferior state school instead of the one I cited... this is substantive because...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The notion that only top schools or ivies have great companies that come to the campus to recruit is…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not just that they come to top schools at "higher rates." The GS guys only come to top schools, for instance. And yes, great companies only recruit at top schools. I'm sorry, but neither LATech nor Texas A&M constitute top schools. There is no way. And so long as they don't, the students at the Ivys and at other elite publics and privates are going to take the great jobs and the great post-graduate spots, leaving a very few for students like you (now we are probably going to go into some debate over what constitutes "great." I can expect that from you).</p>
<p>
[quote]
did you ever have any proof what-so-ever that top companies don't recruit outside of the top 25 schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the list I provided from Alexandre. If you want even more proof, go read the thread from which the list was taken. Your lethargy is far more telling in this situation.</p>
<p>Texas A&M is ranked 60 on UsNews, right? That doesn't seem so terrible for an "inferior state school" as you like to put it. By the way, please explain how calling our schools "inferior state schools" isn't criticism towards us? Your choice of words certainly comes off very negatively.</p>
<p>Anyway, you've once again taken my post out of context. The list you posted was of the most highly recruited...not of every school ever recruited from (GS is only one...but if I remember correctly Vyse said that they do recruit at A&M).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Texas A&M is ranked 60 on UsNews, right? That doesn't seem so terrible for an "inferior state school" as you like to put it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see why you are arguing this point. IT makes no difference to the argument. </p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, please explain how calling our schools "inferior state schools" isn't criticism towards us?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are also good state schools: UVA, Cal, UCLA, UMich. Texas A&M... please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The list you posted was of the most highly recruited...not of every school ever recruited from (GS is only one...but if I remember correctly Vyse said that they do recruit at A&M).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Shoot, I guess you're right. My apologies. I must have misread. It seems that we've been arguing past each other. At any rate, whether it matters do you or not, top schools are still highly recruited.</p>
<p>This might prove helpful:
<a href="http://maysbba.tamu.edu/why/hires.html%5B/url%5D">http://maysbba.tamu.edu/why/hires.html</a></p>
<p>I have been told, from both students and recruiters alike, that yes, top companies do recruit at non-elite schools, but for lower positions. For example, I was talking to my sister at UF, who had previosuly spoken to a job recruiter from Morgan Stanley, and she said that they will only recruit at UF for positions in the operations department, whereas if they go to elite schools, like Duke, Northwestern, and company, they interview for more higher up positions, like mergers, etc.</p>
<p>Just a little something I wanted mention...</p>
<p>Thanks wannabazn.</p>
<p>I abhor the business world, so I know next nothing about it. I plan either to go to law school or get my Ph.D after I graduate, so any contribution anyone else can make will sure be helpful.</p>
<p>Of course top schools are more heavily recruited...they have a higher concentration of top students that are the most likely to want the type of careers that they offer. That makes perfect sense. </p>
<p>It also makes sense to recruit for lower positions at the other schools in a way...if the point is for them to prove themselves through those positions if they hope for the higher ones later in their careers. Kind of a "pay your dues" type thing, I guess.</p>
<p>This thread is so stupid. </p>
<p>Yes, there's going to be a higher concentration of smart kids at an Ivy, so yes, the bigger businesses are going to want to concentrate their efforts recruiting where the largest number of smart people are. However, this fact alone does not afford those at top schools with more opportunities. Kids who went to state schools but are just as smart as the people the top firms are recruiting at CAN and DO get jobs with these people or with EQUIVALENT companies, which is what the salary information proves. </p>
<p>So, how are we defining "opportunities" now? Going from a big name school where everyone thinks they're all that to going to a big name company where everyone thinks they're all that? Uh...some opportunity. Personally, I care more about how much money I'm making than the name on my sweatshirt.</p>
<p>I think nspeds is just bitter because he did go to a no-name school, and the academics probably /weren't/ that great. There /are/ lower tier schools that aren't challenging, and where there are less opportunities. However saying a smart kid at UT Austin or UMCP is going to have less substantive opportunities in life than if they went to an Ivy is silly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However saying a smart kid at UT Austin or UMCP is going to have less substantive opportunities in life than if they went to an Ivy is silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But we aren't just talking about "smart kids" at UT. We are comparing the average student at UT with the average student at, say, Harvard. The latter will have more opportunities. </p>
<p>Elite schools provide such opportunities not only by being grounds for heavy recruitment, but also by having a strong alumni network, strong connections, great graduate school placement, and outstanding (inter)national recognition.</p>
<p>I know a student, for instance, who graduated from Georgetown's MSB, and went straight to a top firm in London.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But we aren't just talking about "smart kids" at UT. We are comparing the average student at UT with the average student at, say, Harvard. The latter will have more opportunities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We are? </p>
<p>Oops. I thought that was pretty much a given, considering the fact that the avg. student at Harvard (due to admissions requirements, not the education he/she recieved at Harvard) would be more intelligent/motivated. </p>
<p>Maybe a lot of people disagreeing with you don't understand that's what you mean. I think most of us here on CC would say smart people tend to have more opportunities career-wise in life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oops. I thought that was pretty much a given, considering the fact that the avg. student at Harvard (due to admissions requirements, not the education he/she recieved at Harvard) would be more intelligent/motivated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly why top schools have more opportunities than regular schools. That's a reason (but not the only one) to attend a top school. I've been arguing for nothing more.</p>