<p>
</p>
<p>“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”</p>
<p>Yes, Beliavsky, let’s return to the glory days of academia when middle-aged or elderly straight WASP males (or those who presented as such) taught dead white males to young straight WASP males (or those who presented as such.) Yale before Brewster?</p>
<p>mokusatsu: Thanks for that quote. I love it. I wish I had some Faulkner to quote back at you, but mainly my state school only taught Shakespeare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As PG has told us numerous times, her kids go top 20 schools AND got in EA or ED. I can’t quite remember which.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>my post limit for the day full-filled and I have to go out to lunch with the girls anyway, at the club, then shopping.
ttfn</p>
<p>There are people who believe that getting into a top 20 school gives one social mobility:
[Equal</a> Opportunity, Our National Myth - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth - The New York Times”>Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth - The New York Times)
I don’t think Pizzagirl believes that. Her kids are going to very good schools, but they are there for the excellent education those schools provide. I don’t quite agree with PG, but she doesn’t think by going to those top tier schools will necessary guarantee or even provide better economic return for her kids. I don’t think she has ever deviated from that from all of her 13K posts. I, on the other hand, think our current educational system will further divide haves and have nots.</p>
<p>I’m sure pg will pipe up, if she wishes. But my take is from her words: wouldn’t fall on her sword if they didn’t get into a top 20. Nor would I, but sure, D1 applied to an Ivy. And has been happy and fulfilled at a top 20 lac. And based on her major, could have been happy and productive outside the 20.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, the political conservatives also complain that more mainstream H/SS departments like history and English are run by left-wing faculty that they do not like. Of course, they might also not like the idea of academic study of, in a non-pre-judgemental way, such things as the economics of prostitution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does, but not to the same degree in all industries. And not the same degree in all companies in the same industry. Many have spent hours producing correlation lists of the Ivy leaguers employed in the financial sector on Wall Street, with the expected conclusion that it might help to have a fancy degree in landing that starting job at a blue blood investment bank or hedge fund. That or the same family connections that helped getting into the Ivy League at first, making one wonder if it was the degree or the connection! </p>
<p>In the dynamic world of startups around San Francisco and Silicon Valley do coders with a degree from Stanford have a real leg up against the ones who graduated from one of the “lesser” UC schools, or even against the ones who gained their expertise in Ruby or Python in high school? Not so much in 2013, but things might be different in 2020 when moving to middle management becomes an objective. </p>
<p>Regardless of the above, it is not cynical to realize that the world of highly selective schools is based on successfully continue to massively separate the have from the have-nots and allow a few outliers to offer exceptions to the rule.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many startup founders hire their first few employees/business partners from their alma maters. If you go to Stanford such a founder is more likely to know you personally than if you went to a school producing fewer entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, that is a non sequitur if I have ever seen one. Unless one thinks that all startups are created in Palo Alto. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While some may practice hiring from one’s own alma mater, most other such startups tend to prefer hiring folks on the basis of technological skillsets and degree of cultural fit within a given startup organization. </p>
<p>This is a reason why it’s not unheard of for such startups to hire from a wider set of schools provided the individual prospective hire demonstrates his/her skillsets and whether he/she fits culturally within the given startup. </p>
<p>Speaking of an older cousin who’s a co-owner of an engineering technology startup, he’s hired folks who were fellow Caltech/elite U alums like himself, directional state U graduates, community college graduates, and college/high school dropouts. He’s also rejected plenty of candidates from all those groups…especially the first. </p>
<p>All he and his co-owners care about is whether they have the required skillsets, fit well within the organization, have great potential to be quick studies and to grow with the organization, and have a great work ethic(Regular 70-100+ hour workweeks expected for all…including himself).</p>
<p>Just lovely to see kids getting credits without ever meeting the professors or not doing work.</p>
<p>PG’s criteria for whether something “matters” or “why should we care” seems to be if that factor has the power to completely handicap one’s career. I think this is too strong a test. There are advantages to attending the super-elite schools vs. the elite, or the elite vs. the decent flagship, that go beyond consulting or i-banking. Sometimes it depends on what field you are in or your particular situation. Or, alternatively, how ambitious you are. If you just want to become a doctor, it doesn’t matter where you go too much. If you want to advance up the ladder more easily in academic medicine, your pedigree can be important. </p>
<p>In some cases, it may be better for your career in some cases to take the road less traveled if it suits you for some reason. And you should, of course, make the best of whatever situation you are in. However, for most people, all things being equal, taking the more elite school will be the better move. And that’s one reason why it “matters.” No one model of how you view a university is the “true” one; many models may accurately and simultaneously describe the role of the university in society. Each model describes a different facet of its role. In some models, yes, one may “deserve” admission with certain qualifications. In others, such as the one PG puts forth of a university as a business which rises or falls on the merits of its alumni, words such as “deserve” may not be warranted. However, it is shortsighted IMHO to dismiss one argument for why admissions matters or why universities should admit certain students by saying that the business model is the <em>only</em> valid model.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true, but when you’re talking about the ground floor rather than the first set of hires, you tend to get your friends to go into the company with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like that cousin and his co-owners, their undergrad/grad school friends/acquaintances weren’t limited solely to their respective schools or even ones in the immediate areas. Especially if the desired skill-sets and those meeting cultural fit are in short supply. </p>
<p>Moreover, like roommate situations, not every friend had the cultural fit or work ethic to make working with them in close quarters for 70+ hours/week a bearable experience. </p>
<p>Personally, I have a few college friends who’d be horrid to have as co-workers or worse…subordinates at work because their work ethic and ability to get things done by/before deadlines are problematic.</p>
<p>^Sure, I agree, you’re not going to start a company with your friends just because they are good drinking buddies. They’ve got to have the requisite skills.</p>
<p>If you are smart, hard-working, and easy to get along with, it is more valuable to have 20 Stanford classmates know that than to have 20 UC Merced classmates know that, since the former 20 are more likely to be startup founders or have jobs at places like Google.</p>
<p>I’d guess that 20 San Jose State alumni are more likely than 20 UC Merced alumni to be working in Silicon Valley computer companies. You are probably also more likely to find San Jose State alumni than Dartmouth alumni in Silicon Valley computer companies. Location matters quite a bit.</p>
<p>I am at a tech “start-up” outside of CA, the 20 somethings in my group are graduates of Cal Tech, Yale, Cornell, JHU, Williams. I just finished recruiting for our summer program and most of them are from top tier schools. As hard as it was for some students to find summer jobs, the interns we hired had 2-3 offers to choose from. I had to do a real sales job to get some of them to choose us.:)</p>
<p>Gotta ask - what did your sales package include for incentives oldfort? :D</p>
<p>Since no one else did, I want to back up and respond to QM’s post 792. In reading about the force-for-good-third-grade-teacher I was sort of reminded of Ann Marie Slaughter’s article “Why We Can’t Have It All” where she writes about tensions that arise between doing good for your family and doing the sort of good that benefits humanity as a whole. Sometimes those who do “universal good” have to sacrifice family interests. Slaughter wasn’t willing to do so. We could debate which course is more noble. Is my child worth more than a hundred children, a thousand, a million? </p>
<p>However I am pretty sure Yale wants the sort of noble that benefits the world. Leadership is really hard for me to define. So I think of benefiting the world instead. Like others on this thread, and Humpty Dumpty, I just like to make up my own definitions.</p>
<p>and post 793</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Usually I am pretty sure that when young people whose total capacities allow them to get the most out of Yale’s opportunities go out and benefit the world, that Yale’s mission is well-served. However, often these young people are those who have already taken up more than their fair share of resources long before they get to Yale. So, again - is the individual or the group more important. I have no earthly idea since I did not go to a top 20 school. If I call my special snowflakes, probably they could answer the question but they are busy benefiting the world and I don’t like to interrupt.</p>