Yes, it’s easier to get an interview from certain schools but once you land the job, you don’t get a higher pay or title for graduating from a private elite. I know this from my firm and other firms I’m familiar with.
Example: in the financial industry the starting level is “analyst”, followed a year or two later by “associate”. So it might be a lot easier for someone from Columbia to land an interview, but they’re going to be hired as an analyst and at the same pay as someone who gets hired from a state flagship.
These things happen at leading state flagships as well.
This isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. State schools are required to be a lot more inclusive in accepting in-state applicants and as a result will have a much wider distribution of students across the academic spectrum vs those at a highly selective private school. So the comparison you should be making instead, is the career trajectory of the top students at the state flagship vs those at the private elites. 5 or 10 years later, is there a difference in where the two sets of students are? I haven’t really seen any.
Harvard this year forced 27 (a six-year high) of its undergraduates to withdraw and another 56 were put on probation for academic dishonesty. This is a school with a reputation (deservedly so, IMO) of being hard to be admitted but easy to graduate. Interestingly, more than 120 cases (out of a total of 138 cases reviewed) “involved courses in the Sciences division and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences”.
That is my son’s impression (freshman at UMass Amherst). Lots of very smart, motivated kids, but also a fair number of kids who are dialing it in (don’t attend class, more interested in partying etc). That is probably par for the course at most state flagships.
As my post stated, this was an observation, plain and simple. I even said a motivated kid can do well from anywhere. I’m not making a comparison of the value of the two, just simply commenting on what I see around me.
I agree that the position and salary of an analyst at JP Morgan (just an example people) is the same regardless of college. However, the trajectory comment was based upon it being easier to get that job from higher end schools AND once you get that job, your trajectory is more substantial than if you started at a lesser position / company. The head hunters approach these kids within a yr on the job. That’s an advantage. S (not in banking or consulting) is with a highly sought after firm which typically has a far reach into significant career (there or at other firms) or top MBA programs which continue that trajectory. Staying there two yrs has opened up many opportunities for his peers a yr or two ahead. Kind of like how top consulting generally gets you pegged at a higher step on the corporate ladder (when moving to industry) based upon yrs in career. He’ll likely stay there for a long time as he likes what he does, the career track, and the company. And yes, he could have got that job from stateU. Not sure he would have known about it though or had been as experienced / focused on networking prior and during the interview process. His peer group was “on it” for about a yr. To me, that’s the biggest difference I see.
Not convinced on the causation statement that it’s ‘easier to get that job from higher end schools’.
As some have pointed out above, it’s not necessarily the school that is the reason for the placement…many students at the highly rejectives come from affluent families, many of whom have connections, which in turn helps for attaining internships and jobs. Said differently, many of these students would end up at in these companies/jobs regardless where they went to school.
I see, so you’re not making an apples-to-apples comparison.
(because you’re comparing trajectories of someone who starts at a particular position/company vs someone else at a “lesser” position/company).
Any they don’t reach out to someone doing the same job if they didn’t come from an elite private?
I saw this at UMass in the 80s (when I attended and graduated). I was very motivated. A few of my friends (emphasize few) were equally motivated. One is now the CFO of an F150. Most were just getting by, partying all the time, etc.
It has become a much tougher admit for instate so there are certainly more gifted/serious students today than 40 yrs ago. And to someone’s comments on engineering, totally agree that engineering, comp sci, etc. do quite well and may actually have a recruiting advantage at good state schools (there are lots of them). Patent Attorney / EE friend of mine who attended a fine private uni with a great engineering program sent his girls to UMass Honors for engineering (EE I think)and they have done quite well. Recruiting all over the country. Of course the elite privates known for engineering / comp sci do very well too.
That makes sense in a way. Engineering classes and standards are specified by ABET and so there are no easy paths to an engineering degree, and that’s true no matter where you go to college. And that’s a good thing, as you don’t someone who can’t do math designing a bridge.
But for other majors at Harvard, students have a lot of discretion on how easy or difficult they want their time at Harvard to be.
Sure but they only have connections if they choose to use them and have the EQ to navigate in these circumstances which comes down to the person tapping the opportunity presented which is not often innate
I’m curious … is this a real research project? By that I mean, are you doing this for your employer, are you meaning to publish the results, or are you doing this to help guide your kid?
What are the research parameters? Are you talking about corp fin, grad school, CS, academia, consulting, the arts, what? And what is your definition of a “good” and “bad” outcome? Who is deciding that and on what basis? What’s a worker bee, and how do you decide who is and who isn’t such in the infinite variety of work place contexts? In my profession, because that’s what I know best, there are non-GC lawyers at large public companies whose compensation and scope of responsibility (as measured in as many ways as you’d like to me to measure) exceeds that of a GC at a small to mid-tier company. Which one is the worker bee? Is an analyst at Goldman who will never be a principal there a worker bee? As someone who sees that up close, they certainly are worker bees, albeit in a very profitable and (to some) prestigious hive.
I guess I’m asking, is this a serious post getting at serious information and conclusions? Or are you trying to found out if your kid can get to some level in corp. fin by going to a non-target school? And, with the responses in the thread thus far, are you getting what you need?
Also, why do you set the stage with the question as “the elephant in the room”? Are you kidding? You might want to peruse the site a little more … there is no shortage of discussion/debate about whether attending highly-selecting and big brand name schools worth it. If the debates qualified as research output, you could use this place as your primary source for a PhD study on that topic.
I agree it may be easier for the first job. My husband’s c-suite, none were from IVY leagues. Our cousin went to Harvard- very smart and her friends were too. She took awhile to find a stable paying job and ended up going to professional school a few years later to have a higher paying stable job. However, my other cousin married a graduate from Harvard undergrad. He never went to grad school to get an MBA. He happen to meet the right people and started off really well with his career in business and now is an executive at Goldman Sachs- which I think is hard to do without an MBA. So it depends probably if you met the right people and how socially savvy a person is at networking. We have another cousin who graduated from Brown, but now he has a regular Federal Government job. My coworker graduated a few years ago from Brown as well, she’s making the same as people around me who didn’t go to Ivy leagues, and her lead on the project, not even sure if she went to college, possibly a local college in the area but unclear. It seems like many people end up roughly in the same area doing similar jobs regardless of college.
This is not real research and no research parameters nor will it impact my kid in deciding about which school to attend. My intent was to understand varying viewpoints elicit a response and understand why so many posts on here are stats, awards, leadership roles etc. with each one outdoing the previous one. When will this absurdity come to a halt rather than adding fuel to an already out of control forest fire.
As for worker bees there are plenty more than queen bees, I don’t know the exact ratio but lets hypothetically assume a 90/10 ratio. 10 big bosses for every 90 little/non bosses.
You mention compensation and yes the type of profession matters greatly for reaching elite queen bee status with Ivy+ credentials of course. Does the analyst at Goldman making $120k-$180k total comp count as a worker bee yes it they are 38 years old and have moved up further. Comparatively, making much more than a teacher, cop, finance manager at a mom/pop company of 10 or less.
Generally, post is for dinner convo with some like minded friends.
This thread will probably repeat themes in many other threads that have appeared here on CC over the years, often with a lot of posts.
The title here seems to be missing some words. Is the intention to ask how Ivy/Ivy-like school grads do as measured by career trajectory?
And what game are we playing? Does this refer to the admissions process?
Ideally, we would be able to judge schools by the experience while there, not what happens afterward, but in this day and age of high cost and loans, the purpose of college seems to have shifted, along with relative interest in the arts and humanities.
And how about measuring success by relative contentment rather than how lucrative or prestigious a job might be…as long as the basic needs of life are met of course.
Does contentment still exist? Basic needs such as cell phone & car at least in the US necessitate mucho dinero, so yes success measured by the almighty dollar. The purpose of most colleges is running a business which is the underlying theme. The business of college and publishing ranking makes most think that they are better by going to a better school perpetuating the business model and all ancillary services. Data Analytics non-degree certificate from Harvard, anyone, anyone.
My most “content” kid has a used cell phone and doesn’t own a car, uses public transportation. Went to Harvard and hated the vibe created by the 40% of grads who went into finance, consulting etc. But some love it and probably benefited in terms of career and income.
If I’m being honest, I knew that already and my question should have been more transparently rhetorical. No offense intended.
But you’re saying that you’re just casually looking into this and have reviewed the 15-year outcomes of 400-500 students who fall into a pretty narrow demographic (independent school + Ivy or Ivy-like)? And you are presumably comparing that data to (presumably) equivalent data from a state school and some other Tier 3 or 4 school, yes? It’s not my place to tell you how to spend your time, but wow. And it’s not even going to help your kid.
Speaking of your kid, it appears he’s applying to Cornell and maybe Middlebury? How do I score that, and your harsh and inaccurate comments about “Generic Private schools”, with the koolaid comment? I can’t tell if you are for or against elite institutions or preparing for rejections ahead of time.
Your response to me, though, does help clarify that money is your focus, which is just fine - I like money too. You do seem to have an excessively “either/or” perspective and appear to miss a lot of the middle ground, particularly with the notion of worker and queen bees. But it’s your dinner party, so don’t let me get in the way.
Premise of the OP seems to be that the question facing kids admitted to HYPMS+ is whether the “stress” is worth it.
I don’t know any kids who viewed it that way.
High -achieving kids I know who didn’t think those schools fit them looked elsewhere and found great options.
Those who went to those schools did so because they liked the fit and saw opportunities not available elsewhere, including the opportunity to engage with peers.
To me the important question is why someone would view the trade-off the way the OP suggests and still apply to these schools.
Cost-benefit in financial terms is probably a tougher question and one full pay families—who now represent a minority or close to it at the well-endowed schools—do confront. But I expect the measure of benefit is a bit more nuanced than future earnings or LinkedIn profiles.