After graduating from Howard University, Kamala Harris earned her law degree from UC-Hastings
Joe Biden has a JD from Syracuse University.
From New England but have lived in FL for 28 yrs. Kids born and raised in FL. The predominant college draw locally is UF and FSU although recently UCF and USF are making inroads to that. All very large schools. Interesting to me, as I attended UMass in the '80s, and although it’s a fine state school, many/most considered it huge and “less than” many other local options. In reality it was small compared to these massive state FL schools. Lot of prestige hunting up north. UF is prestige down here.
From a networking standpoint, would almost (maybe actually) be better to be a Gator than attend a Ivy. That’s great if you stay in FL. The challenge is there aren’t many industry leading employers in FL. Even if you work in a local office of a national firm, it’s a smaller office with less key leadership exposure.
FL is not a bad place to finish a career or start your own shop (that’s what I did), but I wouldn’t want to start a corporate career here. Makes for an interesting scenario as the local schools are the prevailing dream schools but I’m not sure how that plays for placement in other markets.
Not like TX where you have the new Silicon Valley in Austin or the massive Oil and Gas industry. Of course we have the Space Center.
1 Like
I grew up in CA and went to W&M back in the day. I live in NorCal now. I remember telling people where I was going and getting responses like “what did you say? Loyola Marymount?” No one had heard of it. Four people from my Catholic high school went to Stanford my year, though.
Now, W&M is definitely on the list of prized schools. People lament how hard it is to get in. I see license frames and sweatshirts from time to time. I checked my old high school’s matriculation, no one got into Stanford, one kid is going to W&M! Go Tribe!
Most students in our public high school happily end up at Cal State or UC schools, lots to private West Coast schools, and maybe 25% elsewhere including regional publics - Az, Nevada, Oregon and WA.
P.s. There weren’t state schools in 1693, so gotta cut W&M slack on the naming issue. It was named after the crown, which was not a bad thing in pre-revolutionary days.
What are you talking about? Biden went to Syracuse to law school and Harris went to Boalt Hall (Cal) to law school. Both of their spouses have advanced degrees.
In Colorado, both senators are carpetbaggers who aren’t from Colorado and went to east coast LACs. Our governor was born in Colorado but raised in San Diego and went to Princeton.
Harris got her law degree from Hastings College of Law (UC).
Boalt Hall is UC Berkeley and not the same law school.
1 Like
Some states show different patterns than others. Colorado governors do seem to be more likely to have out of state degrees than most other states. However, they are also not dominated by Ivy League colleges. A list of the most recent 10 governors is below. I did not include colleges for which the degree was not completed. It seems to be a mix of several different states and several different types of colleges – mostly publics but also an in-state private, an Ivy League, a LAC, a community college, and 2 catholic schools . I doubt that which college they attended and/or “prestige” of college name was a major factor in their elections. I expect it’s more indicative of the majority of the Colorado population being non-natives who grew up in other states.
Polis – Princeton
Hickenlooper – Wesleyan
Ritter – Colorado State + U Colorado
Owens – Austin State + UT Austin
Romer – Colorado State + U Colorado
Lamm – Wisconsin + UC Berkeley
Vanderhoof – Glendale Community College
Love – U Denver
McNichols – Regis, Catholic U
Johnson – None
Still to my point and this discussion, neither went to what I would refer to a prestigious national college. (this is what the thread is calling it)
I am sorry, but Howard is pretty damn prestigious.
It simply isn’t popular among the 90% of the top 20% by income who are non-Hispanic White or Asian.
Howard is no more prestigious than any other school. All are equal.
Both Hickenlooper and Bennet went to Wesleyan and are a classic case of networking as one appointed the other education chief when he was elected governor and the other one turned around years later and persuaded the by then ex-governor to stop wasting his time running for president and run for the Senate instead. There are other examples of Wesleyan alum finding each other and making big splashes: Lin-Manuel Miranda and Thomas Kail were the creative geniuses behind “Hamilton”; a couple of generations before them four juniors got together and made the classic folk recording “Michael (Rowed the Boat Ashore)”; and, somewhere there is a syndicated station broadcasting reruns of “How I Met Your Mother”, the brainchild of two Wesleyan alum. Go Wes!
Quite a bit of difference between Hastings (SF) and Boalt (Berkeley) law schools here locally. 
1 Like
Auburn University is in the City of Auburn, AL.
I am curious, but have not looked it up, but would guess that a lot of state governors go to their in-state schools. That is certainly true in North Carolina. I can’t think of one who did not attend a North Carolina college or university.
Most likely.
I have observed this too for most US states.
In the UK, 70-80% will be Oxbridge graduates and not even be from, or have ever lived in, the state.
They are just appointed based on the central collective decisions of the Old Boys Network.
This entire thread helps to solidify my opinion that there is no such thing as a “national” university. And this is summed up by a remark I overheard years ago by a person from the east coast, “Why would anyone choose Stanford when they could go to Harvard?”
That is interesting LutherVan. Do you think students who attend non-Oxbridge unis are at a disadvantage in other fields. My 11th grader is looking hard at going to the UK for uni, but not Oxbridge, but has no desire to be a mover and shaker in that way. Are students who go to places like Strathclyde or UEA looked down upon? Or is it that Oxbridge is its own club and then there’s the rest, because I think she’d rather be lumped in with the rest. She would have no designs on Ivies here in the US, either.
@Sweetgum As you can see there are people in the UK who are bitter for the rest of their lives about failing to get into Oxbridge at 18. Just like there are people in the US who are bitter about being rejected by Stanford, Harvard etc.
Likewise there are a few people at Harvard who look down on others who went to “lesser” universities, but there are plenty of people who are successful who went elsewhere. That’s similar in the UK, though remember that 7000 students attending Oxbridge per year is equivalent to 35000 students in the US, so more like attending a T20 in the US. And the cost is the same basically everywhere so there’s no reason to choose a lower ranked university because it’s cheaper. Yield at Oxbridge for UK students who meet their offers is therefore typically 95-98%.
What is different is that in the UK admission is a purely academic test based essentially on exam success. In the US people who were rejected can complain that others were admitted who were less clever than them, but instead were favored for other reasons (legacy, sports, wealth, etc.). It’s perhaps more difficult to make that case in the UK (other than saying your preparation in school was inadequate) just like it would be in say India about not getting into an IIT. But some people who are very talented aren’t necessarily going to shine in high stakes exams at the age of 18.
It’s worth noting that in the UK the focus on exam results does continue in and after college. In particular getting a first is a much bigger deal in the UK because there’s such a clear cut dividing line between a first and a 2:1, unlike in the US where no one cares if you got a 3.71 GPA or a 3.69. You’ll put on your CV that you got a first when applying for a job even 30 years later.
1 Like
Hi Sweetgum,
I would not go as far as saying “looked down on”.
I would say “doors for elite positions and at the top do not open up for them quite easily”. A system was in place to share most of the elite jobs between a small group of aristocractic, privileged, private school educated people.
But as I stated here:
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/22637605/#Comment_22637605
It has been gradually changing in the last 10 to 12 years though. The era of Oxbridge graduates making up 80-90% of top roles is coming to an end.
https://www.ft.com/content/872be7f2-68f5-11e5-a57f-21b88f7d973f
I suspect it has fallen to about 30 to 50% of roles now. The main beneficiaries though are the Top 4 London universities and a few elite universities just below them.
Furthermore, with the “devolvement policies” adopted in the 2000s, this has enabled Scotland, NI and Wales to locally take charge of some of their governance. Scotland and NI more so than Wales.
This has definitely improved the prominence of the number of people from their local universities taking up the roles previously that didn’t exist or would have been given to an Oxbridge graduates. So Edinburgh and St Andrews graduates are getting more high profile opportunities.
There is still elitism but I don’t think we have a situation of “Oxbridge and Rest” anymore.
We have an emerged local stratification of tiers where Oxbridge are still the two universities (rightfully) at the top. Followed by LSE, Imperial and UCL in the next tier, before you get the likes of Edinburgh, KCL, Manchester, St Andrews, Durham, Bristol etc. in the third tier.
These are the tiers where 90% of the movers and shakers now come from.
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/22634415/#Comment_22634415
I would say Strathclyde and UEA are in the 5th tier. You can call them “good universities”.
“The Rest” is now tier 7.
Note this is the local stratification. The international one will create an extra tier as only Edinburgh and KCL will sit in tier 3 and the others in the local tier will have to move a tier down, while lower tiers also follow by falling a tier down.
LutherVan seems to be stuck in the early/middle 20th century with his characterization of the UK and the implications of its university system. (I spent two decades interacting with many, many people in the banking and finance industry in the UK, and while Oxbridge graduates were certainly over-represented, it was nowhere near 70-80% - and this in one of the industries they would be expected to “dominate” if that was the case. Some of the most successful people I met there were not Oxbridge graduates). All of which is irrelevant to this particular thread anyway.