<p>
[quote]
A few weeks ago I had a thought so heretical that it really surprised me. It may not matter all that much where you go to college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html%5B/url%5D">http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html</a></p>
<p>Thought-provoking essay.</p>
<p>mommusic: very interesting article. It is indeed pea-whits who judge people by the group and not by the individual. The smartest person I ever met graduated from Iowa State U! He did't have distain for those who went to ivies, he just couldn't have cared less. He wanted to learn chemistry chemistry chemistry and he didn't want to have to think about transportation, finances, or a college search. He lived in Ames - he went to ISU. </p>
<p>For my own children, I have advised them to find the perfect fit for them - and don't worry about the "athletic league" of the school! haha I have one who is very interested in Ivy, one who is very interested in USAFA, and my younger D, who wants to be that girl from the movie "Legally Blonde."</p>
<p>Paul Graham has written another provocative essay. </p>
<p><a href="http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html%5B/url%5D">http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html</a> </p>
<p>
[quote]
Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it.</p>
<p>But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officersbasically, HR peoplebased on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's more. What do you think?</p>
<p>Life is all about playing games, if all admittances are is the ability to play the game, it is still going to be a good predictor of future success.</p>
<p>Funny this thread should come up--hubby and I just had the conversation! He attended an Ivy and then a very good law school, only to return to hometown to practice law. My argument with this is that he does not have the network available to him that the large state U does. And, by the way, state U has a law school as well. I have often wondered if he is being compensated for that Ivy ed as well! My point is that he does not have many college network friends. He, on the other hand, believes that one should try to obtain the best possible education, no matter where you end up working or living. He believes he is a better person for it. I guess my point is that if you are only interested in getting a college ed and then returning to hometown, then the State U or other less prestigious than Ivy might be enough. I do not believe in graduating with hundreds of thousands dollars in debt, like so many of our students are doing today. I am in no way knocking the Ivies or the State U's, but I guess it boils down to a matter of finances, and what you want out of life. Many of son's HS friends want to attend the big State U and pretty much return to hometown. There is nothing wrong with this decision, either. And, I have to wonder if, since so many more kids are attending college, and there are just so many slots (even at the Ivies), if the lower tier schools are becoming just as valuable for a college ed.</p>
<p>this is a reiteration of what Krueger and Dale determined in their longitudinal study of more than 10000 college graduates. The determining factor in post grad success is a function of the talents and abilities of the individual and not the particular university or college they attended.</p>
<p>As an academic for more than 30 years, this conclusion is a no brainer for me.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Life is all about playing games, if all admittances are is the ability to play the game, it is still going to be a good predictor of future success.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>A students find themselves working for C students because they're so used to molding themselves to other peoples expectations.</p>
<p>It depends how you look at it. On an individual level it may not make bit difference. However, the life in 21st century is collectively shaped by alums of those schools where kids gamed the system to get in - admitted by HR people - with high index of obedience and lying through their teeth in essays (Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Paypal, Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, Sun Micro, Teach for America, Kiva, electronic stock trading......)</p>
<p>Oh, this is sure a great thread for cynics! I graduated from a Top 20 LAC and ended up teaching first grade in a poor rural elementary school, as a second career. </p>
<p>I could have gotten the same lowly teaching job by going to a state teacher's college. But I am more than my job. I'm also about the books I choose to read, the music I listen to, my ideas, my values, the way I read the newspaper.</p>
<p>That expensive LAC taught me to think critically and thereby set me up for life. I have an inner core that a job can't own. </p>
<p>I recognize the astronomic rise in tuition costs since I attended (note my screenname), but still maintain that your H chose a wise path. </p>
<p>My brother went to a top university, and second-tier law school. He now lives near family in central New Hampshire, where housing is reasonable, practicing family law and raising a great family. He goes fishing a lot, too. Why is it a mistake to have taken 4 years to educate himself in ways that resonate for a lifetime? </p>
<p>Everything can't be measured like investment portfolios. I just take issue with all of that.</p>
<p>Alchemy - then why are the average incomes so much higher out of the top schools?</p>
<p>(Yes this has many obvious answers, but your response ignored them)</p>
<p>I disagree that the SAT (or ACT) is "an easily gamed standardized test."
Some parents will pay for review courses or even tutors, but the kids still have to do the work. I doubt most adults would have an easy time with those junior year exams (SAT, ACT, SAT 2, AP', Regents, etc).</p>
<p>I dunno....I work at a Bay Area tech firm and I'm in a situation right now where there is a Stanford mafia who look out for each other and like to c**p on ideas that are not from Team Stanford. My manager's manager (a Cal grad) who manages Team Stanford knows there is something up and has championed my ideas, which they hate because one of them took off and captured the attention of the CEO. </p>
<p>There's something to the alum thing, but it is more a function of "legends in their own minds" in my opinion.</p>
<p>paying3tuitions and DSC, you are missing the point. Yes p3t you are defined by what you read, the music you listen to, your ideas and the ability to think critically. But is the the result of where you attended college or a result of the person you are. K&D found the latter to be the case. Me, I attended a huge flagship university(OSU) as an engineering major, and found on entering grad school(Cornell) that I was every bit as well prepared any other in my department. My electives included Ethics, Serbo-Croatian lit, urban/regional planning, Medieval music, 20th Century music, Social cybernetics, the Civil War and Reconstruction, metallurgy of ferrous materials, among others. Both you and I could have been equally prepared for life long learning from hundreds of colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Any yes, the average salary of grads from highly selective colleges is surely higher than those from good old state U. But again K&D's study concluded that an individual accepted to HYP but choosing to attend good old state U would fair the same because of his inate talents, dedication and personal characteristics.</p>
<p>I feel that I am in a better position to make my case because I was fortunate to be a student at both a state university and an Ivy League university and because I have been an academic for three decades now. I have taught thousands of students and interacted with thousand more from other universities around the country. That is why my observations conclude that the conclusions of the OP article and the K&D study are corrrect.</p>
<p>This is certainly an interesting question. </p>
<p>IMO whether or not the choice of a college makes a big difference may depend on the individual. It may well be true that for some students, it matters not at all. </p>
<p>With respect to my own two kids, I do think it would make a significant difference. I think both my kids are the kind who are quite environment-dependent -- like certain flowers that benefit from very specific conditions to flourish. </p>
<p>My D went to a single sex liberal arts college (Smith) rather than a large state school. She entered Smith thinking she might major in government or history or lit. She ended up, through the encouragement of a prof, majoring in economics. She has recently snared her "dream" job (an internal transfer within her current firm) and will be one of two women in the position compared to 30 men. Where did the other woman attend college? Bryn Mawr. This is a small sample, I know, and anecdotal rather than conclusive, but it does make me wonder if my D's path would have been the same had she attended the state school.</p>
<p>My h.s. senior son is interested in engineering but wants a small school with small classes. He does not want to be one of hundreds of kids in intro engineering classes -- and would probably face significant risk of "washing out" in such an environment. So we are looking at the few liberal arts schools that offer engineering.</p>
<p>Perhaps I am deluding myself and mainly trying to rationalize spending the money on private colleges. But I do feel it is likely, in my kids' cases, to make a difference. </p>
<p>I can think of other kids who will do well anywhere they go. </p>
<p>My H attended a state school for undergrad and an Ivy for grad school. Both worked well for him but he agrees re what might be best for our kids.</p>
<p>Oh no, not another is it worth it thread. Well, at least originaloog brought up the old Kruger and Dale study. That usually doesn't appear until about the 50th post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A few weeks ago I had a thought so heretical that it really surprised me. It may not matter all that much where you go to college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only surprising thing is that Paul Graham was surprised only a few weeks ago. Where has he been all this time? On Mars? Heretical? Gimme a break. He's only just caught on to the zeitgeist. The Kruger and Dale study dates from 1999 and used data from 1995. Time to get with it, is all I can say, pal.</p>
<p>Well, it's hard to argue with the proposition that anyone with drive and talent will do well where ever he or she goes. The opposite is probably as true.</p>
<p>I do have to wonder if the question about a college's impact on someone future is less about which school or its general reputation than on the opportunities it offers and how well a student can take advantage of them. Whether it's networking that will serve you well in 30 years or access to world class research facilities, different schools offer different things. It's the match of talent and opportunity that can make the difference.</p>
<p>So, I'm not surprised that getting a teaching degree from Yale doesn't have the same effect as a law degree (and a membership in Skull and Bones) might on someone's long term "success". Or that gradutes of decent state schools can do extremely well.</p>
<p>BTW, I was told by a career counselor recently that graduating from the top school in a particular popular field will probably only add 2-3% to a student's starting salary. OK, it also increases graduate's chances of getting jobs at the most prestigious employers. After that it's up to the student. That's consistent with my experience as an employee and employer. </p>
<p>Again, the main advantage is that this particular program can be extremely challenging and offers some remarkable opportunities in research and real world practice. A student who throws himself into the challenges will probably do well in any job. A student from the same school who just does what he needs to graduate will probably get by on any job. What else can you expect?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My brother went to a top university, and second-tier law school. He now lives near family in central New Hampshire, where housing is reasonable, practicing family law and raising a great family. He goes fishing a lot, too. Why is it a mistake to have taken 4 years to educate himself in ways that resonate for a lifetime? </p>
<p>Everything can't be measured like investment portfolios. I just take issue with all of that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hear, hear!!!!</p>
<p>Originaloog--I transfered from a not very good school to a much better one. the first was a run of the mill LAC, the second a socalled "public Ivy." It's not whether it's a public or private, but what the level of challenge from the classes, profs, and your fellow students. The second school was night and day different--better--than the first, and the quality of the education I got, and the person I am, is different because of that.</p>
<p>My D transfered from an okay public to a very good LAC--same experience with a huge difference in the experience because of the other students plus the quality of the education.</p>
<p>To both of us, the experiences we had at the second schools were utterly different and better than at the first.</p>
<p>I don't give a fig if the D and K study shows I'm not making more money, nor does my D. We are not in it for the money, and we know we got more out of our educations at better schools with better students.</p>
<p>It may not matter where you go to school if it's merely a stepping stone to commercial success, but that was never our reason for education to begin with.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it.</p>
<p>But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers—basically, HR people—based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I disagree with his statement. Look I'm not saying that the top colleges have some sort of monopoly on all the smart students but I do think that at least most students at these institutions are very smart and talented people. Yes there are smart students in almost all universities but that's not the point.</p>
<p>So who is Paul Graham anyway? An inventor of a type of cracker perhaps? And why should his opinion on college selection matter any more than any one elses's?</p>