<p>I'm perfectly aware of all of that- my point is only that people have a tendency to stretch that study a lot farther than it logically can go. The amount of money a person ends up making in life will be determined almost entirely on luck and their own merits- where they go to school is usually irrelevant (though when it is that usually falls into the luck bit). </p>
<p>Personally, I see education as the ends itself, and money as an entirely separate matter. But people shouldn't delude themselves that they'll make just as much money as another guy regardless of where they go to school any more than they should believe they'll make $X if they go to _______. WHAT YOU LEARN will have an effect, and your natural abilities, but if you're gifted, you'll be capable of making money (given luck).</p>
<p>Oh, and it definitely matters for Law, but only for law school itself, not for Undergrad. And even then, any school can get you in somewhere if your record is stellar. I know a former recruiter for Goldman Sachs, and the way he tells it the only reason he hired more people from upper tier schools is because more applied.</p>
<p>The terminal degree of a person matters the most. If you graduate from Yale law, noone cares if you went to Harvard or a state university (or even community college) for undergraduate.</p>
<p>But if the person doesn't plan to go to graduate school, going to Penn-Wharton undergraduate over a state university business school might help a little.</p>
<p>I'm glad you made that point arbiter213. I feel like that study excites a lot of people who will never have a chance at attending an Ivy league so it is taken way out perspective.</p>
<p>None brings up a very good point too- outstanding performance at a topflight undergrad school can also be a big head start on earnings. I know an (unrelated to previous example) recent Penn graduate who is was hired for a 3 year contract out of Wharton undergrad by Goldman Sachs as an analyst. She currently makes more than my father (Brown UG/ Wharton G-20 years with a fortune 500 company and now an independent consultant). </p>
<p>Regardless of whether she goes for a graduate degree or not, she'll have that on her resume. And she got it because major corporate structures like investment banks have major recruiting efforts at those schools, the likes of which you wont see at a minor state school. </p>
<p>There are advantages people. It's just that they're only that- advantages. If you're Tiger Woods, it won't matter that you don't get a handicap. And if you've only got one arm, it won't matter if you get a 7 stroke handicap, you're STILL not going to make it in under par.</p>
<p>'only something like 9% of Fortune 500 CEOs went to Ivy Leagues, MIT or Stanford. Most of the world's billionaires did not go to top twenty schools.'</p>
<p>I'm sure fewer than 1% of students go to those schools, so a 10X better chance of becoming a top CEO is not nothing. Bill Gates? Buffet? Foreigners who attended top institutions in their respective countries? I.e. Cambridge?
Also it's different, 30 years back a uni education wasn't as vital to success, and a high school diploma may have been the standard level of education. Nowadays college education is the standard, so the university has become far more important. </p>
<p>Also I bet there's at least 10 capable people for every fortune 500 ceo position. The only difference is that 1 person who did get it was lucky enough to be given the opportunities to excel and display their skills. What alumni/business connections with the ivies will get you is that first job that'll set you on the path for that success.</p>
<p>"It proves that brilliant minds/ exceptional individuals will achieve equally well regardless of circumstance (at least to a degree)."
Isn't that the point? Obviously students who can't get into the ivies because they are less inteligent are at a disadvantage. The study shows that smart kids are going to go get theirs as long as they get a solid education somewhere. I think that study proves a very important point.</p>