Like which people?
I don’t think this is a good or strong analysis.
Oxbridge-like talent is far more distributed beyond the T20 in the US.
I think you need to read my response to her before you rush (rubbing your hands in delight) to attacking my position just because of an argument you lost earlier to me.
As I stated, it is changing. You have no point to condemn on this occasion.
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/22750479/
I have no recollection of “losing” an earlier argument, and I suggest you re-read the terms of posting here in terms of thread drift and not being a “debate society”.
I was not debating with you or anyone, son.
I was just giving my perspective of UK’s difference until you and the other bitter bloke who lost an argument too thought you saw an “opportunity” for attack.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I suggest you both either take it to PM or move the discussion forward please
The simple truth is that prestige exists. Some schools earn it because of the strength of their programs, and some schools build it on affinity to the State where they reside. Most posters loath the idea of prestige because, well, after all, all schools are equal aren’t they. 
I think the problem is in the way the question is asked. The OP already posits the existence of “prestigious national colleges” right there in the subject line. The consensus seems to be that in addition to those “usual suspects” that there are local favorites. That’s a tough position to dispute. The quiet part that isn’t being said out loud is that not everyone is interested in moving to New York, Hollywood, or Washington D.C…
I would definitely agree that prestige exists (and does need to exist).
But the fact there is that prestige tends to have reach and boundaries.
What I think the OP is trying to highlight is that prestige in the US is very hard to be national. It is more regional.
I attribute the lack of national reach of top US universities’ prestige to the size, governance structure and media distribution system of the US.
The US is half the size of most continents. It is effectively 50 countries.
You made me curious so I looked it up for my region, the Pacific Northwest. Out of the 14 most recent governors and Senators I looked up there were two Ivy league undergrads (Yale and Dartmouth) and two Stanford undergrads. The other ten all attended mostly west coast state schools for undergrad:
WASHINGTON STATE
Gov. Jay Inslee: Dropped out of Stanford after one year for $$ reasons, finished undergrad at UW and got his law degree at Willamette University in Salem, OR.
Sen. Patty Murray: BA from Washington State
Sen. Maria Cantwell: BA Miami University of Ohio
Ex-Gov Christine Gregoire: UW Undergrad, law degree from Gonzaga
Ex-Gov Gary Locke: Yale undergrad, law degree from Boston U.
Ex-Gov. Mark Lowry: BA from Washington State
Ex-Gov: Booth Gardner (heir to Weyerhaeuser fortune): UW undergrad, Harvard Business school MBA.
OREGON
Gov Kate Brown: undergrad from University of Colorado, law degree from Lewis & Clark College in Portland
Sen. Jeff Merkley: Stanford undergrad, MPA from Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton.
Sen. Ron Wyden: Stanford undergrad, law degree from University of Oregon
ex-Gov John Kitzhaber: Dartmouth undergrad, medical degree from Oregon Health Sciences University
ex-Gov. Ted Kulongoski: ex-marine, attended University of Missouri for undergrad and law school on GI bill.
ex-Gov. Barbara Roberts: Portland State University undergrad
ex-Gov Neil Goldschmidt: University of Oregon undergrad, law degree from UC-Berkeley
There is some confusion on this thread between treatment effect and selection effect.
There are some U’s that churn out stellar graduates-- because that’s who they admit. If you are cherry picking among the top 3% in your country- grades, scores, etc. then any “decent” university can produce top graduates.
There are some U’s that churn out stellar graduates because even though they are highly selective, their teaching resources are phenomenal, the rigor of their programs is phenomenal- even when compared with “peer” universities in other countries, etc.
I cringe at the “all universities are great” argument- because even though a lot of universities are capable of turning out great graduates, it is not the case across the board. And similarly- even a great, world class institution- can turn out a clunker.
When we are all being honest (doesn’t happen every day) we can admit that the local college down the block which essentially has “open enrollment” (if in fact you live somewhere with such an institution close by) might do a great job preparing B and C high school students for careers in a couple of disciplines. But again- when we’re being honest- to claim that the college is “just as prestigious” as one of the top ranked schools in the country- or the world- is really being argumentative.
My local, non-flagship state college does a nice job in its “computer science” major getting kids ready to take on jobs in corporate IT departments, working at the help desk at a call center troubleshooting a wonky program, working on system upgrades at a regional bank. The college brags that it “places” kids at Apple- which is true- but working retail at the Genius Bar is not the same career trajectory as working in product development at Apple. Just not the same.
Could those kids have had a different path if they’d gone to Cal Tech? Sure. But they couldn’t get in (problem number 1), likely couldn’t have kept up with their classmates (problem number 2) and likely couldn’t have graduated (problem number 3). I don’t live anywhere near Cal Tech- but even the biggest local boosters of my regional state college recognize that what Cal Tech does in Computer Science has very little relationship to what happens on this regional campus.
So yeah- Cal Tech has a national, prestigious reputation. Does it matter to the kids majoring in comp sci locally? No- Cal Tech wasn’t an option. But I’ve helped some of these kids with their resumes, interview prep, etc. and to claim that “it’s all regional” is really not accurate. Cal Tech gets to pick the best of the best (selection effect) AND run them through a very rigorous, state of the art education with phenomenal resources, faculty, access to internships and summer jobs, research facilities, etc (treatment effect).
1 Like
Regarding the success of students as an indication of the quality of education that they get at a particular college. A decent student from a very wealthy family is going to do well, no matter where they go. However, their family income will often ensure that they attend a “prestigious” college.
Furthermore, as others have stated, by making one’s college popular, a college can then pick and choose those students who are almost certainly going to succeed after college. In fact, Harvard has raised this particular type of selection to an art form.
“A decent student from a very wealthy family is going to do well, no matter where they go. However, their family income will often ensure that they attend a “prestigious” college.”
I have observed a different phenomenon. There’s an entire group of “formerly not so prestigious” colleges which serve the “not quite so academic” children of rich families. These colleges have only become “prestigious” in the last generation because the college counselors at various prep schools have explained that no, little buffy isn’t following in mom and grandma’s footsteps at Harvard and Radcliffe, respectively, but “College you’ve never heard of” is just as prestigious. Circular argument for sure, but once these colleges become a “known quantity” at the club, once the stickers appear on the cars in Greenwich and Dover and Winnetka-- then yes- the prestige echo chamber takes over.
Are there talented, hard-working, intellectual kids at these places? Yes. But there are also the sons and grandsons of the “Gentleman C” of yore- except that Princeton isn’t taking dumb preppies anymore, and Yale would rather have a brilliant first Gen kid from the South Bronx who needs a ton of aid to attend then let in yet another third generation slacker. That model of college admissions is done and over (at least for now).
MWolf- where do you think the C students from Prep schools who come from wealthy families end up? It ain’t YOUR definition of “prestige”… but it’s “newly prestigious” because these families have “discovered” these colleges.
Some of this prestigious colleges probably even pick people that are already famous or successful just to raise their own prestige by being able to say “this person is an alumni”.
Can you give examples of some of these “formerly not so prestigious” colleges?
I got hammered (both on the boards as well as in PM’s) the last time I commented on one of these colleges- to answer a parent’s question "Is college Blah blah “worth it”. So it’s not worth the aggravation to name names. That parent had a legitimate question- pay full freight for a “newly prestigious” college which was not well known in their part of the country, vs. their state flagship (which is solid but not Michigan or Virginia).
But any parent here can remember where the C and D students from their HS went, right? Or the places where kids went to find a suitable spouse after getting a degree in something not terribly taxing. And some of those colleges have invested in labs and libraries and faculty and programs- and their "national rankings’ have risen, and they truly have become more academic, more rigorous, “more prestigious”. And some of them have hired ad agencies, improved the food in the dining halls, and have admissions reps who are on a first name basis with a bunch of college counselors. Which may make them “more prestigious” but it certainly doesn’t enhance the academic or intellectual experience on campus.
I don’t understand the purpose of this thread. If you’re able to get into a selective school (whether private or public,) afford it, and want to attend; then by all means attend. If not, it’s still possible to have a successful career, regardless of where you go to school (exception being for-profit schools.)
Students only get to choose once colleges have made decisions on them, so it’s a very personal choice if they want to choose cost vs. prestige vs. location etc.
Some of them may be commuting to the local non-flagship state university because they cannot afford anything else, not because they were unable to get admitted anywhere else. (And there are plenty of good CS major programs that are less selective than Caltech.)
Oh, I can. There are lots of kids from the Northeast who come down to North Carolina and go to places like Elon and High Point U. Those are not schools that attract many of the best and brightest from North Carolina, nor the C students from NC either. I think 20% or so of students at Elon are from NC and probably less at High Point. I do think Elon has improved a lot over time, but it used to be a pretty low level college. I had a neighbor who went there in the 1970s, but that was the first I ever heard of it. It certainly didn’t have the rep of a school like Duke or Davidson or anything (which do have a lot of students from NC, btw). I know there is a fair amount of love here on CC for Elon, but, boy, my kids are not interested at all. They went/go to high school not far away from Elon and they do not see the appeal, but it seems it’s a good fit for some students. I kinda can’t get over High Point. It just seems to really cater to the wealthy folks from out of state. Weird. Kind of amazing how HPU has remade itself in the past few decades.
Thank y’all for chiming in on the UK universities. I know this was more focused on US colleges, but I appreciate the insight into the UK system. Still trying to wrap my head around a lot of it.
17% from NC at Elon: https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=elon&s=all&id=198516#enrolmt
27% from NC at High Point: https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=high+point&s=all&id=198695#enrolmt