<p>No, I wouldnt be surprised. Outside of the corporations that willingly only hire Ivy+Stanford+MIT, you dont have a leg up. </p>
<p>Yes, it's branding. Yes, many (probably most on this site) apply because of the name and dont care about fit. I do trust you applied to Dartmouth because you fit in there.</p>
<p>All in all, not caring about fit is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ya study for SAT's. Are those percentages correct ("critical reading- 59 higher than 92% of sophomres")? I'm curious cause I am a rising sophomore and I can score around 218 on practice PSAT's (and I haven't studied yet...although I have to start going to this SAT prep thing this summer). Just curious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is sad, very sad. If you're scoring 218 as a freshman, you clearly don't need SAT prep, and this early on you really don't need it anyway. Ah, people are so...obnoxious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Outside of the corporations that willingly only hire Ivy+Stanford+MIT, you dont have a leg up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll agree with that. But in a lot of those scenarios, who wins? The state flagship. I think in any given state, we can all agree that the state flagship trumps some random state university there anyday.</p>
<p>There's certainly a hierarchy of prestige. The higher the prestige, the better the jobs you're looking at. It's a little sad, but that's how the market works.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All in all, not caring about fit is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. But most people are not motivated by "fit" - they're motivated by explicit, economic factors like prestige. Take that economic incentive of prestige away, and there'd be really no point in applying to the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Big Brother that "name branding" concept is a very interesting point.</p>
<p>Big Brother also wrote:
"There's certainly a hierarchy of prestige. The higher the prestige, the better the jobs you're looking at. It's a little sad, but that's how the market works...most people are not motivated by "fit" - they're motivated by explicit, economic factors like prestige. Take that economic incentive of prestige away, and there'd be really no point in applying to the Ivy League."</p>
<p>Prestige is not an "explicit, economic factor". That there is some real and tangible benefit in getting an Ivy League diploma is without debate. But what exactly is that benefit? The answer to that question is not a simple one. </p>
<p>Prestige cannot easily be quantified in economic terms. Statistically, it is difficult to measure the financial gain from such a degree when also considering tuition and the cost of preparation (including time). </p>
<p>Many different paths can lead to wealth in the USA. If money is the main goal, an Ivy League degree offers no guarantee to reach it. An HYPS diploma could provide contacts if a student had the social skills to make and keep them. It could also offer other advantages in various fields (getting into a training program with a top investment bank, for example, is almost impossible if you haven't gone to a great school). The Ivy League can open certain doors, but not most of them. </p>
<p>If you look at the universities attended by CEO's, board members of top companies and institutions, the most powerful politicians, and the wealthiest entrepreneurs, you will see that an Ivy League degree is not in any way a requirement to reach those positions. That Ivy Leaguers often get to those places is because of who they are and what they do, not becasue of the name on their school sweatshirts. When others have the same personal qualities and do the same things, they can achieve the same successes (without the degree from Harvard).</p>
<p>The best thing about going to an elite school is being surrounded by the best and the brightest peers for four years, being in classrooms with professors who have achieved much in their fields, and the pride that comes with having been chosen to join such a rarified environment.</p>
<p>Do not worry so much about the SAT score. One of my best friends (Hispanic as well) got into Harvard with an 1860 this year, and two of my friends (African American) got into Amherst with 1800's.</p>
<p>The only thing I would suggest is that you keep a more open mind - there are so many schools not in the Ivy League that will offer you just as great an education. Trust us on this one.</p>
<p>Goodluck, I wish you the best in your college search!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Prestige is not an "explicit, economic factor".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That I disagree with. Michael Spence's 2001 Nobel Prize work was based on the concept of "asymmetric information" - or market value indicators such as prestige. Think what kind of world it would be if the University of Georgia was equated EXACTLY to Harvard, or Coca Cola was equated EXACTLY to that no-name brand. People rationally tend to levitate to the goods and services that have a high market value - and prestigious colleges are no exception.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That there is some real and tangible benefit in getting an Ivy League diploma is without debate. But what exactly is that benefit? The answer to that question is not a simple one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say the benefits are simple to ascertain. There's the insane networking that each Ivy alumni network offers, not to mention the brand name diploma that certain employers will levitate to. But your statement actually reinforces my point because you're basically saying, "I don't know why the Ivy Leagues are good, I just know that they have to be good." That's the precise line of thinking among most CC college applicants as well as top employers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Prestige cannot easily be quantified in economic terms. Statistically, it is difficult to measure the financial gain from such a degree when also considering tuition and the cost of preparation (including time).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet Michael Spence did so. The Ivy Leagues also have a boatload of statistics of average salaries and stuff online. Apparently, it's pretty easy to measure "financial gain."</p>
<p>
[quote]
If money is the main goal, an Ivy League degree offers no guarantee to reach it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously an Ivy League degree is no perfect guarentee. But that's not the point. As a student, you want to increase your odds of success as much as possible. Nobody is saying that you can't become some druggie graduate of Yale who murders a guy by running him over, just like nobody is saying that you can't die from a car accident despite wearing your seat belt. Sure seat belts don't offer perfect protection, but that's not the point. You wear seat belts because they increase your odds of surviving a crash.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you look at the universities attended by CEO's, board members of top companies and institutions, the most powerful politicians, and the wealthiest entrepreneurs, you will see that an Ivy League degree is not in any way a requirement to reach those positions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've stated this many times on here before--my father went to a third rate state school because he couldn't afford to go to Penn.</p>
<p>I think this whole thing is silly. I really depends how you look at success. If you're defining success as something like: "Will do generally well, have a decent average or slightly above average salary and live a GENERALLY good life," then yes, a degree from an Ivy can probably help you achieve that even if you are not the most talented person in the world but you managed to get into Yale or Harvard or wherever. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you think an Ivy degree can help you become a world renowned poet or millionaire (in itself), then you are sadly mistaken. Ivy League colleges have a high number of successful alumni because of the quality of the applicants and accepted students, not the other way around. In the end, it's the people who make the school what it is and not the name on the diploma. </p>
<p>So I'm going to argue that the benefit of going to an Ivy or generally highly regarded school: you'll surround yourself with MOSTLY very talented and ambitious people. For some, that sort of environment is extremely stimulating and exciting. For others, it may not be the best environment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So I'm going to argue that the benefit of going to an Ivy or generally highly regarded school: you'll surround yourself with MOSTLY very talented and ambitious people. For some, that sort of environment is extremely stimulating and exciting. For others, it may not be the best environment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree, I feel like far too many here think it's the only place for that. There are nearly 100 or so colleges in the U.S. where you can surround yourself with ambitious/mostly ambitious people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who cares if Sakky attended or not...They're not some ultimate educational oasis. You're not going to be living on the streets if you dont attend an Ivy.
[/quote]
When you preach as an expert, I kind of expect some first hand experience. The OP didn't ask for our approval of the Ivies as a goal. She has the goal and wants some input on chances and areas to improve. I admire her ambition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So Sakky, which Ivies have you attended?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you preach as an expert, I kind of expect some first hand experience
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heh heh, some people here know my background. </p>
<p>But anyway, let me ask you this, bandit_TX. If I do indeed have substantial first-hand experience to back up everything I say, would it change your mind, one way or the other? I suspect probably not. Seems to me that you've already made up your mind. So if that's the case, what would I gain by playing your game? I wouldn't be able to convince you no matter what.</p>
<p>Sorry to the OP for hijacking her threads. Some people just can't accept you're aiming higher than them as far as the business world is concerned.</p>
<p>bandit_TX - where did you go to school? From the tone of your posts, it really seems to me that you are reliving your life through your daughter and that you were one of those moms/dads who said, "Let's celebrate, we got into Yale!" Just an observation. </p>
<p>Also, though the OP's proposed an ambitious premise, she reasoned that she was passionate about academic excellence and leadership, and cited Harvard and Yale as the only two institutions that really foster such a program. This thread morphed because of that assertion, that the Ivies (and in particular, Harvard and Yale) provide the best education in the world, and nothing is better. For some things that may be true, but if you, say, want to go to grad school for Economics, I'm sorry to say that the University of Chicago usually beats out the Ivies. Or say you want to go into Engineering... are Harvard and Yale the places to be? I'd say no. </p>
<p>I am certain that the thread would not have transformed into this discussion if the OP had said something like, "I'm really interested in English Lit and writing, and I've read works written by professors at both Yale and Harvard and I am in love. I would be thrilled to study English Lit with them." That kind of well-reasoned statement would not be so inflammatory, and the OP probably would have received more useful advice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Liberal arts subjects can be largely self-taught if necessary. Apparently that is not true for all subjects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps this is just an exercise in semantics, but the 'liberal arts', strictly speaking, include the sciences and mathematics. It just doesn't include engineering. But like I said, certain sciences (notably physics), as well as math, are just as esoteric as engineering is, if not more so. </p>
<p>But more to the point, even if you were to just restrict yourself to the humanities and social sciences, I would argue that even many of them are difficult to teach to yourself. Philosophy may be the best example. Just try reading any of the works of, say, Wittgenstein and you will probably quickly find that you have no idea what it's talking about. Economics too is a social science that has become so formalized and rigorous as to be nearly akin to a branch of applied mathematics. Open any major economics journal (i.e. the American Economic Review) and just try to understand any of the methodology in any of the papers. Most people can't do it. </p>
<p>But putting that aside, even if there are subjects that you can successfully teach to yourself, why should you have to? Isn't the whole purpose of a good university to provide good teaching such that you don't have to teach the material to yourself? </p>
<p>
[quote]
possible that schools like MIT and CalTech have flawed admissions strategies?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn't say that, for the purposes of this thread, that the problem is specific to MIT or Caltech. After all, engineering at, say, Stanford or Princeton or Cornell is also just as esoteric. Similarly, physics/mathematics is difficult anywhere, whether you're talking about MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Princeton, or whever. </p>
<p>What I would point to is actually the 'sociology of science/engineering'. Like I said before, science and engineering profs at research universities get professional recognition for their research, not their teaching, and that tends to hold true no matter what research university you're talking about. </p>
<p>Furthermore, let's face it, the world of science and engineering does not really value human empathy, and in fact, almost seems to reward coldness. You mentioned Einstein - he's a good example. Einstein's first marriage (to Mileva Maric) ended in great acrimony, with Einstein even calling Maric "uncommonly ugly", and in fact while married to her, had cheated on her with his own cousin (Elsa, who he later married). In fact, Einstein's divorce to Maric was so acrimonious that Maric agreed to the divorce only if Einstein were to win the Nobel (which he did years later) and give the entire prize money to her (which he promised to do but did not). Lest you think that she was a gold-digger, it should be said that she wanted the money to pay for the medical care of their son who was suffering from severe schizoprehnia and who eventually died in a mental hospital. This was a son that Einstein barely spoke to for years. </p>
<p>But let's put aside the details of Einstein's personal life. Much of the rest of the problem in science/engineering has to do with an attitude of 'chronological hazing'. The prevailing attitude of many science/eng profs is that since they had to suffer through indifferent and uncaring teaching when they were students, now that they're the professors, they're going to make their students undergo the same thing.</p>
<p>In any case, the general point is simple - there is a lot of mediocre teaching going on at any of the top research universities. Like I've always said, if you are truly interested in top teaching, go to a LAC. Profs in the Ivies, just like any other research university, are mostly selected and promoted on their research productivity, not their teaching quality. Ivies are nonetheless highly desirabe schools because of their strong brand names, their excellent resources and support, and their strong networking and recruiting opportunities. But to choose an Ivy because you expect great teaching? That's dubious.</p>
<p>At the risk of sounding incredibly uneducated, what actually falls under the category of URM?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the fact of the matter is various Ivys are ranked at the top worldwide, and a lot of people will know the name of the college you attended as opposed to attending a small LAC. And that sure as hell opens more doors for you than some state school, not that state schools are bad or anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. Since we're talking about brand names, I would argue that the brand name of, say, Berkeley is probably stronger than, say, Cornell's. Berkeley has its problems to be sure, but one thing it does have in its favor is a quite powerful brand name. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I've stated this many times on here before--my father went to a third rate state school because he couldn't afford to go to Penn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
. Statistically, it is difficult to measure the financial gain from such a degree when also considering tuition
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. I knew 2 people who got into both their flagship state school, and to Harvard, and found out that Harvard would actually be cheaper, once financial aid was factored in. </p>
<p>That's simply because Harvard and the other top private schools tend to be extremely aggressive when it comes to allocating financial aid, such that for some people, it is actually cheaper to go to one of them than to go to a state school. As a case in point, Harvard now guarantees a financial aid package that includes no parental contribution whatsoever to families making less than $60,000. How many state schools can say the same? </p>
<p>I will always remember one of those guys morbidly joking that ever since he was a kid he had always dreamed of going to his state school. But since he ultimately couldn't afford it, he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>But the point is, we cannot simply conclude that the top private schools are always the more expensive option. For some people, they are. But for others, they are actually the cheap option.</p>
<p>Big Brother Quote: Think what kind of world it would be if the University of Georgia was equated EXACTLY to Harvard, or Coca Cola was equated EXACTLY to that no-name brand. People rationally tend to levitate to the goods and services that have a high market value - and prestigious colleges are no exception.</p>
<p>I did agree that the branding metaphor has legs. However, measuring the success of human beings is infinitely more complicated than tracking the sales of soft drinks or the quality of educational institutions. I question the ability to accurately measure the relative impact of different colleges on one’s financial success. </p>
<p>Big Brother Quote: I'd say the benefits are simple to ascertain. There's the insane networking that each Ivy alumni network offers, not to mention the brand name diploma that certain employers will levitate to. But your statement actually reinforces my point because you're basically saying, "I don't know why the Ivy Leagues are good, I just know that they have to be good." That's the precise line of thinking among most CC college applicants as well as top employers.</p>
<p>I do know why Ivies are good. I don’t think you can quantify the future financial benefits as precisely as you seem to think.</p>
<p>The ”insane networking“ that you consider a given is grossly overstated. ”Certain employers“ levitating to an Ivy degree does not create an advantage that the majority of graduates can depend upon. There are those who will discriminate against a person because of a degree from an elite institution. I assure you it exists because I have seen it happen (A guy I know who went to State U and runs a big financial institution said he almost never hires Ivy grads because he has found them to be pompous and less able to get along with others). How do you quantify that variable? </p>
<p>One of the myths young adults succumb to is the ”it’s who you know“ rule. Out of all of my successful friends (some of whom attended Ivy’s, some of whom did not), I cannot think of one person who benefitted from their college network. People think because they read that George Bush hired a guy from Bones for some big job at the White House that everything works that way. It doesn’t. And the majority of students who go to Yale won’t get close to the inner circle of America’s financial and power elite (even if one of their offspring is in the room down the hall). </p>
<p>Go to State U, open a chain of funeral homes, and amass a tidy fortune if money is your goal. Then start donating some of it. Watch how fast your network of other successful and powerful people grows.</p>
<p>Successful people end up knowing other successful people, no matter where they went to school. If you went to Princeton but you are weird and can’t get along well with others, the whole ”who you know“ thing really won’t amount to much. For example, surgeons who are respected by their peers get recommended to ”Best Doctors“ lists and their practices expand. No one is going to nominate you because you went to Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Big Brother Quote: The Ivy Leagues also have a boatload of statistics of average salaries and stuff online. Apparently, it's pretty easy to measure "financial gain."</p>
<p>Do those statistics consider the cost of tuition and preparation (for some students, Harvard may be cheaper, but certainly not for most)? Numbers can say whatever you want them to, and there are other statistics which might lend support to forgoing Stanford for the college down the street. Check out The Millionaire Next Door. </p>
<p>Big Brother Quote: Obviously an Ivy League degree is no perfect guarentee. But that's not the point. As a student, you want to increase your odds of success as much as possible. Nobody is saying that you can't become some druggie graduate of Yale who murders a guy by running him over, just like nobody is saying that you can't die from a car accident despite wearing your seat belt. Sure seat belts don't offer perfect protection, but that's not the point. You wear seat belts because they increase your odds of surviving a crash.</p>
<p>Way back in this thread I recommendd that the OP go to an Ivy League school if she can get in, so I’m all for them. But you just cannot say that the diploma will help you make more money. If graduates of HYPS who became fabulously wealthy were to have gone to an average university, the outcome would have been the same. It is the person, not the school, which determines success in the vast majority of cases. Seatbelts do increase your odds of surviving a crash. Ivy League schools are not seat belts, and they do not increase your chance of becoming successful (with few exceptions). You odds of becoming successful are increased when you are brilliant, try hard, and work smart.</p>
<p>Sakky quote: ..."even if you were to just restrict yourself to the humanities and social sciences, I would argue that even many of them are difficult to teach to yourself."</p>
<p>There is ample material available online and in the library to research almost any topic. A university student who relies solely upon a one hour classroom lecture is doing far from the minimum amount of adequate preparation. </p>
<p>I still think that the majority of liberal arts subjects can be self-taught. Also, just because a professor is egotistical and reluctant doesn't make him entirely useless. Certainly he is making some progress when he is up in front of a classroom. Most importantly, as a mentor and for inspiration, an accomplished professor has much to offer to the best and the brightest. Being exposed to such a person is in itself a powerful opportunity for instruction.</p>
<p>My son was very disappointed with almost all of his freshman year teachers at the Ivy he attends. In fact, he strongly considered transferring because the education he received was not worth the money. He IS going back, and has some plans to change a few things so that he has a better experience. He does think the whole Ivy-excellence thing is a bunch of cr*p, and believes there are many, many places where you can get as good or better of an education, including University of Chicago. He found his classmates to be, in most instances, all about the prestige of the school and the degree and much less about learning and intellectual development.</p>