<p>I would like your thoughts, please. </p>
<p>Also:
Does a highly prestigious school in a great environment and location really justify the enormous cost of attendance?
Does attending highly prestigious schools give people an edge in the workplace?
Does attending a highly ranked and respected institution for undergraduate school give you an edge over someone who went to a lesser known/ prestigious school for undergrad when applying to grad schools</p>
<p>Just wondering.</p>
<p>If the in-state school is one of the public ivys, then it is harder to justify the cost. </p>
<p>It's difficult to make a blanket statement about this because it also depends on your family's financial situation, and on the quality of the out-of-state alternatives. Personally, I think prestige matters. Prestige is not an empty quality. I think prestige is acquired over time because of real qualitative differences. Prestige in colleges is like fame in individuals. Usually the individual is famous for a reason; so is the college. </p>
<p>I am from NY and none of the SUNYs could match Cornell. For my family, Cornell was the choice over Carnegie Mellon. Rice, U Michigan, U Illinois, and U Rochester (all great schools) even though Cornell was most expensive. Implicit in that choice is the belief that the extra cost was justified.</p>
<p>Does it help in the workplace? Not necessarily. Highly qualified students graduate from every college. I do believe that graduates from more selective colleges tend to be more highly qualified on average. Yes, I think there is generally an advantage to prestige with recruiters and grad schools. </p>
<p>But those four years in college matter for their own sake. </p>
<p>Lots of other factors enter into career success (as measured by money and climbing the ladder) besides competence and effort. Things are often upside-down in the workplace. Animal dominance often pays off more than competence, style more than substance. In fact, I think more intelligent and competent individuals are less motivated by the traditional measures of career success. College may the last place where life will be fair and just, where how much you know and how hard you work will pay off.</p>
<p>high prestige doesnt justify cost but the prestige has nothing to do with the environment so thats a seperate matter. It doesnt give a measurable edge in the workplace as long as you do well (im comparing prestigious schools to the top 150 or so schools outside of ivy types, outside of that i think school may play a small role). But it does give you an edge in grad school but i dont think it will be worth the extra cost in the long run (assuming your above border line)</p>
<p>I think it depends on what your end career goals are and in which area of the country you want to settle. If you are planning on entering a low paying field, then you might be bogged down with student loans following that degree and it wouldn't be the best decision. However, if the field you plan to enter will result in a large salary one day, then loans might not be as big of a deal. I stress the area of the country because in some areas a large state university can be as good a networking opportunity as an extremely prestigious school in another area of the country. I think it's really necessary to reflect on where you want to be career wise and location wise ten years after you graduate.</p>
<p>I think the effect of going to a prestige college does have a halo effect in the very, very early years of a career but at some point the individual's ability to succeed will outweigh the "halo" of their past.</p>
<p>graduating from a top college does give you an advantage in the job market.</p>
<p>I do case studies on things like this:</p>
<p>It's not uncommon for companies to get 4,000 applications for one job. I believe microsoft alone gets over 100,000 resumes a month. Businesses need ways to 'sort out' applicants. So, rather than going over 3,990 applications to pick out a few, they will only look at grads from the top colleges. After all, cognitive intelligence is the most effective predictor for job performance in high end companies. Feel free to argue against it, but I can quote both my professors and a text book to support it. Businesses rely on the selectivity of colleges to already choose the top applicants. It's not necessarily the that a student might get a better education at an elite school (though, I wouldn't doubt it's the case), but rather the fact that they were smart enough to get accepted in the first place. The college has already selected the best and the brightest. Now the business doesn't need to spend months and week reading over each individual application. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that students from top colleges are the only ones to get jobs; but more often then not they are the ones getting the best jobs. </p>
<p>As far as grad schools go, I would say an elite college does have its advantages. Check out the Harvard Law school website. They have lists of what colleges their students came from. Most schools have representation of 3-5 students at most. Now look at the rates for all of the ivies, plus stanford, duke, Berkley, etc. They have numbers in the mid to high 40's and 50's. I wouldnt say that it's certain proof beyond all belief that an elite undergrad school will get you into a top law/professional school, but i wouldn't call it a statistical coincidence. </p>
<p>Does the environment at elite schools justify the cost? Yes. No doubt. I transfered into Cornell from Syracuse U. There really isn't much of a comparison between the students. The parties were much more abundant on days of the week like monday, wednesday, sunday ... but i dont care about stuff like that. It's nice to have an intelligent coversation once in a while, and I could pull any student aside from any classroom and learn more in 5 minutes of conversation from them then I did at an entire year of time with students at my other school. To top it all off, the schools were pretty much the same in price. I'm very grateful that I am where I am now. </p>
<p>For me, a top school was easy to justify.</p>
<p>The last posting made me think of something and I wondered if it had ever been analyzed. You pointed out that many schools only had 3 or 4 accepted but that the Ivy schools, etc. had numbers in the 40's. I wonder what the applicant pool looked like. It would be interesting to know if Harvard Law received more applications from students that received their undergrad degrees from Ivy schools or what the percentage was apply to accepted rate for public and private. I'm not trying to argue....this is just me wondering about something I've never really wondered about. Where do the majority of their APPLICANTS (not accepted students) complete their undergrad degrees? </p>
<p>I suppose the reason I ask is because I went to a public university. I knew a lot of people who went to law school, but I don't know one person who applied to Harvard Law or really any Ivy League law school. Therefore, our acceptance would be zero, but so was our application rate. Then again, I think the majority of people I knew wanted to remain close to home and practice in our state so maybe that was an influence. Again, I'm not trying to agree or disagree, this is just something I wondered about. You don't happen to know this information, do you?</p>
<p>i dont have the information ... i do know that comming from the top universities does give one an competitive advantage when it comes to admissions, but like you said: you do have to apply in the first place. If i had a 3.9 at my previous school, I probably wouldnt bother applying to Harvard law. However, a 3.9 where I am now I would totally give it a shot. Maybe other students have the same mentality, and dont even bother. I'd be interested in finding out the answer myself.</p>