<p>
[quote]
Maybe they are much older than you???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point was that they were obviously successful without a boost from a brand-name school, even in a field where people tend to stress the importance of an elite degree.</p>
<p>But in reponse to your question, some of them are only ten years older than me.</p>
<p>"The more I look into college the more I think the education a student might recieve at a large top 25 school, such as UPenn, is comparable to that of a decent state school. Both will have large intro classes and TAs teaching courses. Both will have professors who are either a success or a failure with their students. "</p>
<p>I don't think you can compare Upenn to a decent state school</p>
<p>
[quote]
Use your common sense, though. Is there such a wide disparity between the admitted pool and the top of the rejected pool? I think not. I realize that I am making a broad claim, one that will probably never be backed up by statistical evidence, but think about it. If there was such a difference in quality, one should easily be able to predict who will be admitted to elite colleges, year after year. Right now, admissions is considered a crapshoot. Why? Because there are far too many highly-qualified applicants. The picking and choosing among these applicants by the adcoms is not clear-cut. Those applicants who are perfectly capable but somehow don't make the cut a particular year (perhaps an elite school needed swimmers instead of singers) will probably find the same success from another school as they could have at a highly-ranked college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, but we're not talking about that. We're not talking about comparing those who actually got in vs. those who were at the top of the reject pile. We are talking about people who actually got in, but turned it down. That's a very different story, because it speaks to a very different mindset. Let's face it - it's a rare person who will not only get into a school like Harvard but also have the mental strength or the personal circumstances to turn it down. </p>
<p>Let me try to make the example crystal-clear. Harvard yields about 80% of its applicants. I would argue that that 20% who didn't go are significantly different than the 80% who did go. For example, that 20% may include a lot of people who already knew they wanted to be doctors and so are attending BS/MD programs. They may include people who already know they want a military career, so they are going to a service academy. They may include people who know they want to dedicate themselves to an arts career so they're going to Juilliard. They may include people who already know they want to be engineers, so they're going to MIT. Contrast that with those people who aren't so sure about what they want to do, so they go to Harvard to hedge their bets. I think it is clear that these population subgroups are substantially different from a motivational and psychological standpoint. You could make the case that those people who actually get into Harvard but turn it down (not those at the top of the reject pile, but those who actually get in and turn it down ), are probably more motivated and more mentally mature than those who go. Let's face it. It takes a strong person to turn down a Harvard admission offer.</p>
<p>I've also done work this summer in the M & A area at a top NYC investment bank. Everyone I worked with went to top colleges and business schools. What department were you in? If they made $300,000 it was probably a support department, in M & A they start counting after 7 figures. Certainly the support didn't all go to top colleges but the majority of the actual bankers did (the others were really connected).</p>
<p>What is M & A?</p>
<p>suze - I work with FAs in a DC-area branch, and $300k is the bottom of the barrel in terms of their annual commissions (hence my saying they'd earn that in a "bad year."). Now if they don't qualify as successful in your eyes because they're not making seven figures, well then that's your problem. :rolleyes: I'm sure they're not losing any sleep over it.</p>
<p>It's not that I don't think they're successful, it's that I think you portrayed them unfairly as investment bankers. They are analysts at an investment banks and no one claimed you need a top school degree for that job.</p>
<p>i think there are more opportunities from grads from top tier schoools than for grads from state schools(excluding public ivys). </p>
<p>When this discussion comes up, people are quick to say that they know so and so who did amazingly well and went to great grad school from a state school. Sure, it happens to the brightest and most motivated kids, but not for most of the students.</p>
<p>Take Wharton MBA program attendees. 50 Upenn. 35 Harvard.. etc etc. Then you get down to like state schools that have many 2-3 students. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but state schools have a much bigger student population than Upenn, Harvard, etc. I mean UT-Austin has only a few(Can someone find the post that had the exact numbers) and its the biggest state school. </p>
<p>Also, in business for example, where you graduated from makes a big difference on how you're treated. If you come from a very good school, your boss just feels more confident in giving you tougher assignments. Sure you can work your way up to that level, but it's much better when you don't have to prove yourself. Reputation also helps in networking. When you're meeting random stangers, they will feel more inclined to network with you when you say you're from stanford than if you say you're from penn state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not that I don't think they're successful, it's that I think you portrayed them unfairly as investment bankers. They are analysts at an investment banks and no one claimed you need a top school degree for that job.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>They're FAs, not analysts.</p></li>
<li><p>I never said they were "investment bankers." Just that they were people making good money at an investment banking firm. The topic of this thread is the importance of an elite college degree, and all I'm doing is using my personal experience to show that it's not as crucial as some people think. Many people at CC think you need a top degree to work at an investment bank period. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
If you come from a very good school, your boss just feels more confident in giving you tougher assignments. Sure you can work your way up to that level, but it's much better when you don't have to prove yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BS. You have to "prove yourself" no matter where you went to school. Promotions are based on performance, not your degree.</p>
<p>Not true. Let's take ibanking as an example since everyone loves to talk about that. Most ibanks in NYC have a training program for the 2/3 year analysts. Only people who get to skip that are Wharton undergrads. Even at the ibanking level, bosses are more confident in students coming from top schools, and therefore Wharton kids on average get a significantly higher amount of bonuses at the end of the year.</p>
<p>Ibanking is just one example. Research, consulting, etc. the better your school the less you have to prove to your boss. Take PWC. My friend(Cornell) is working there over the summer and there are students from all over(Toptier all the way to VTech/JMU/GMU). My friend gets to do a lot more then them and not particularly because of his performance. He told me that his boss is takign him on a business trip to Las Vegas for a week(paid), and my friend didn't work any harder than the guys from the lower schools. From his perspective, students from better schools were treated better, got more responsiblities, etc. That might be because of performance(but they all did get hired), but in such a short period of time, I doubt that it was completely based on performance.</p>
<p>You're talking about the bottom levels on the corporate ladder. No one's disputing the advantages of an elite degree there. But I would think most people would hope to advance past these entry level jobs. In that case, your boss will be looking at what you've done, not where you went to school. To think you won't have to "prove yourself" because of your degree is absurd. You're in for a very rude awakening if you think you'll be able to sit back and coast through the ranks thanks to a degree from a top 25 school.</p>
<p>BTW, citing the advantages of a Wharton degree in i-banking to prove your point is like using Harvard to illustrate the benefits of a college degree. Wharton's an i-banking factory that gets immense respect on Wall Street. You don't see the same thing with other top undergrad biz schools. It's an exception rather than the rule.</p>
<p>thats because undergrad buz in general is a joke. at most schools its considered a soft major for people who can't handle real math. the ones who aren't strong at math(quantitative and analysis skills) don't get high up and get less than desirable positions at corporations. (exclude top 10 schools). Do businesses really value undergrad buz majors from schools(exclude top10)? I mean besides your intro classes, you're just learning stuff you don't actually get to apply until 7-10 years down the road when more likely than not you'll need an MBA. And the MBA will just teach you those classes again. That's why many good schools(Harvard, Princeton, etc.) don't have undergrad buz. They're not stupid(many harvard grads end up high in businesses) and if they don't see value in it, neither do I.</p>
<p>there is a huge gap between wharton/stern/uva/mich/berkeley's schools/etc. and Maryland/Penn State/Vtech/etc.</p>
<p>I would also argue that besides schools like UPenn, NYU, Georgetown most people getting into ibanking majored in something besides business(engineering, econ, math/cs).</p>
<p>From the AdComs & guides we've spoken with, it sounds like the student needs to be more self-directed at the larger schools in setting up appointments & meeting with faculty through office hours and appointments than perhaps at the smaller schools.
When I was an undergrad at huge state schools, you never had to see an adviser if you chose not to & had to take it upon yourself to see one if you wanted to. I had no trouble making appointments with & meeting with advisors at either UHawaii or UOregon. They would NOT have sought me out, but were willing to work with me. 4+ profs in my department, Sociology, were all very happy to provide any & all the advice I needed + advise me on my honor's thesis & review it & get it approved for me so I could graduate with honors, but I took the initiative there as well (the school had no honors program at the time).</p>
<p>If desired, I'm quite sure I could have gone through all my years at undergrad without speaking to a single prof or advisor outside of class. (I'm glad I didn't.) All the profs I've known & spoken with when I was a student & those I know now who are teaching at colleges tell me how beneficial they believe it is to have contact with students. I loved getting to know all the instructors & made it a point to attend at least a few office hours for each course, whether I had any questions or not, just to get to know them. </p>
<p>It probably is more of an effort to get to know faculty at larger state Us with tens of thousands than smaller schools (like law school which had a total of about 600 students). In final analysis, loved graduating virtually debt-free & don't feel I lost anything by not going to more expensive, smaller, more elite schools.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
In final analysis, loved graduating virtually debt-free & don't feel I lost anything by not going to more expensive, smaller, more elite schools.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Same here. I was able to have a great time, graduate summa cum laude and get into the professional school of my choice.</p>
<p>Banana, the arguement here always involves being an investment banker. 90% of the people who work for investment banks are not investment bankers. 90% of airline employees are not flying planes! You can be a janitor or a secretary and work at an investment bank or an airline. You'll make decent money. But really, why confuse people? Working at an investment bank in no way makes you an investment banker.</p>
<p>Uh, these people are not janitors or secretaries. I think you're taking things to an extreme here. When CC people say they want to work in an i-bank, do you think they'd scoff at a $500k/yr analyst position? Keeping in mind that the most argumentative posters tend to be in high school, do you think most of them even know what they're talking about when they say "investment banker?"</p>
<p>Really, I don't see why you're making such a big deal of this. I never mislead anyone by saying they were investment bankers. If anyone would like further clarification, they are financial advisors and do asset management for private clients. They also happen to work at an i-bank. Ergo, it is possible to make good money at an i-bank without an elite degree.</p>
<p>To be an investment banker making 6 digits you need a graduate degree anyway! Undergrad won't suffice.</p>
<p>And can people summarize their responses please. We don't need to read essays.</p>
<p>'To be an investment banker making 6 digits you need a graduate degree anyway! Undergrad won't suffice.'</p>
<p>If you include bonuses, second year analysts make 6 digits.</p>
<p>Yeah, you can definitely make six digits without grad school in i-banking, but to become an actual "investment banker" (since suze seems to be so stuck on that point), you'll need an MBA.</p>
<p>" Most ibanks in NYC have a training program for the 2/3 year analysts. Only people who get to skip that are Wharton undergrads. Even at the ibanking level, bosses are more confident in students coming from top schools, and therefore Wharton kids on average get a significantly higher amount of bonuses at the end of the year."</p>
<p>I am an ex-investment banker. At my firm, back in the early 90s, Wharton grads did not get to skip anything. The analysts from Wharton who worked for me were no better on average than their peers from other colleges, and these individuals most certainly did not get the highest bonuses. The best analyst I had was an archeology major from Princeton.</p>
<p>An earlier post asked why someone would take a Harvard English major over a Wharton grad, or something to that effect. The reason is that most of the actual job tasks are learned on the job. The business school training is helpful as general background, but a talented person can remediate gaps in specific knowledge. They can't however remediate not being as smart, or as quick, as someone else. We wanted the smartest, best people we could get (who fit the mold). Period.</p>
<p>Moreover, a branch of analyst work involves extensive proposal and presentation writing, so good verbal skills can be more vocationally relevant to the tasks at hand than high-level business training.</p>
<p>I agree with Suze's prior comments about investment banking & education. I also agree that a very trivial portion of the world actually will become investment bankers, and most everyone else lives in less stratified air.</p>