<p>Just to clarify a prestigious school does not have to be a private school there are several notable public schools that deserve recognition for their programs and student body.</p>
<p>This discussion comes down to what you have vs. who you are. My daughter had a classmate who used to brag about the college his parents went to. It had been years since they were in college, but this was their most important accomplishment apparently. That's pathetic! A name-brand college can definitely help you accomplish your goals, but you can accomplish those goals as well without the fancy brand. It's up to you. And honestly, from the view of a teacher, it's more about the willingness to take risks than it is about the ability to get A's. In fact, the mere presence of an endless stream of A's mean that no risks were taken at all. It isn't the straight A students who you hear about in the news, starting hugely profitable companies. It's the kids who drop out or flunk out. These are kids who live with risk every day.<br>
And as for the difference between a BS and BA, do you really think anyone in HR is paying attention to that? All they're looking at is whether you graduated. Most of them don't know what the difference is.
Get the degree you want, from the school you choose. You can do anything you want if you decide you will. I know engineers working as secretaries and high school graduates working as engineers-- it's YOU who matters, not your school! If you decide that the students from your school can only go so far, then you will join a line of sheep doing exactly that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There used to be a saying in the corporate world: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." You no longer hear this about IBM specifically, but the idea is very much alive; there is a whole category of "enterprise" software companies that exist to take advantage of it. People buying technology for large organizations don't care if they pay a fortune for mediocre software. It's not their money. They just want to buy from a supplier who seems safea company with an established name, confident salesmen, impressive offices, and software that conforms to all the current fashions. Not necessarily a company that will deliver so much as one that, if they do let you down, will still seem to have been a prudent choice. So companies have evolved to fill that niche.</p>
<p>A recruiter at a big company is in much the same position as someone buying technology for one. If someone went to Stanford and is not obviously insane, they're probably a safe bet. And a safe bet is enough. No one ever measures recruiters by the later performance of people they turn down. [2]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would say that this is the number one reason why where you go to college matters. It helps you greatly in getting a job right out of college. All other jobs are based on work experience, but you don't really have a whole lot when applying for your first job out of college. Top companies only recruit at top schools because they know they have a better chance at finding a smart hard working individual who might fit into their company. You can spend years shifting through good resumes of people from hundreds of schools in America. Maybe the person who ends up being the best person for the job went to some third tier college. However, how are you supposed to judge that based on resumes and a few interviews. The name of the school on the degree can verify "hey this kid must be smart and must be hardworking,he graduated from X." This might have nothing to do with where people are 5 years after graduation, but it is nearly impossible to really predict who will shine in the real world and who will flounder. The best thing companies can do is hope a brand name school where they have employed past grads will be some sort of validation that this kid can work.</p>
<p>^Right, so the reason why where you go to undergrad "matters" is because it'll get you your first job. In the long run though, it doesn't help all too much, as evidenced by a study done by Princeton University economist Alan Kruger:</p>
<p>The</a> Worthless Ivy League? | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com</p>
<p>Fatladysings .... first I love your "name" and second ... BRAVO!!!</p>
<p>"In fact, the mere presence of an endless stream of A's mean that no risks were taken at all. It isn't the straight A students who you hear about in the news, starting hugely profitable companies. It's the kids who drop out or flunk out. These are kids who live with risk every day. "</p>
<p>I completely agree. All of these straight A students kind of makes me sad ... all I can think of is a flat boring world with no kinks or unexpected twist to make it fun along the way.</p>
<p>A friend just sent me this quote ... you might like it ...</p>
<p>"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious." Brendan Gill, author and critic, 1914-1997</p>
<p>For all of us who take ourselves too seriously sometimes ...</p>
<p>^How much does your first job help you in the long run? Some people never leave the first company they work for (though that's getting very rare now). Other people find that their companies fund their graduate school education. Yet others use their first jobs as spring boards to other careers (if you look at threads on CC many people say they want to be investment bankers for the exit opportunities to enter better fields). Also, when you apply for later jobs what looks better: X just finished up with great recs from Bain and has a Harvard degree, or Y just finished up at no name consulting with a degree from generic state U. Granted there are tons of other factors like the interview, but going to a good undergrad, getting a job at a big name company, and doing good work there all help build your resume a little more than places with less name recognition.</p>
<p>There are fields like medicine and law school where your undergrad really doesn't matter and you residency or law school means most. There are also people who go on straight to a PhD program or other graduate schools where that degree means a lot more than their undergrad. However, for the majority of people who enter the work force after undergrad and for those who never go to grad school or enter fields where undergrad degree means 0, where they went to undergrad can have an impact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I completely agree. All of these straight A students kind of makes me sad ... all I can think of is a flat boring world with no kinks or unexpected twist to make it fun along the way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why does doing well in school have to be boring? Why do straight A's automatically mean no risks were taken? Couldn't it be that a straight A kid is just intelligent? I don't understand why people are putting down kids for getting straight A's.</p>
<p>^our country values athletics and looks more than intelligence and hard work. why else do the best basketball players and actors make a ton more than the best teachers?</p>
<p>
[quote]
^How much does your first job help you in the long run? Some people never leave the first company they work for (though that's getting very rare now). Other people find that their companies fund their graduate school education. Yet others use their first jobs as spring boards to other careers (if you look at threads on CC many people say they want to be investment bankers for the exit opportunities to enter better fields). Also, when you apply for later jobs what looks better: X just finished up with great recs from Bain and has a Harvard degree, or Y just finished up at no name consulting with a degree from generic state U. Granted there are tons of other factors like the interview, but going to a good undergrad, getting a job at a big name company, and doing good work there all help build your resume a little more than places with less name recognition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Remember that you have to do well in school even if you go to a prestigious school. It is very difficult to do well at an Ivy or another top school, so there's not even a guarantee that you'll have an awesome first job lined up for you when you graduate if you don't do well.</p>
<p>The name of your school may help find first jobs in fields like investment banking or consulting like you mentioned, but that is such a small set of occupations. Even in the situation you mentioned, do you really think a consulting company is going to take a Harvard grad over somebody who's obviously more qualified but from lesser known school? I don't think so. Companies want qualified people. They don't care where you did your undergrad.</p>
<p>Where you went to undergrad will determine who many of your life-long friends are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Remember that you have to do well in school even if you go to a prestigious school. It is very difficult to do well at an Ivy or another top school, so there's not even a guarantee that you'll have an awesome first job lined up for you when you graduate if you don't do well.</p>
<p>The name of your school may help find first jobs in fields like investment banking or consulting like you mentioned, but that is such a small set of occupations. Even in the situation you mentioned, do you really think a consulting company is going to take a Harvard grad over somebody who's obviously more qualified but from lesser known school? I don't think so. Companies want qualified people. They don't care where you did your undergrad.
[/quote]
I recognize that there are too many if factors that occur when you are in college to determine if you will get a job at a McKinsey or Goldman. However, from my experiences, people who do well at their state schools would probably have done just fine at Harvard or other top school (MIT and the sort being exceptions). If you do poorly at Harvard you might have done just as poorly at a lesser known school and either way you are in a tough position for getting a job after graduation. If you do well at Harvard or an average college, you'll find you have a lot more opportunities coming out of Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even in the situation you mentioned, do you really think a consulting company is going to take a Harvard grad over somebody who's obviously more qualified but from lesser known school? I don't think so. Companies want qualified people. They don't care where you did your undergrad.
[/quote]
In the situation I mentioned, I had both people on equal footing. In that case it is likely a recruiter will say "I don't know who to pick, o hell I'll go with the Harvard guy he must be smart." It is equally likely for the recruiter to say "people at Harvard are stuck up, that kid was stuck up now that I think about it, I'm going with the other guy." I think the latter situation would happen more with smaller companies though and the former with big name companies. Also, I would never expect a company to hire someone from Harvard who is less qualified just because he went to Harvard. However, during the screening process I don't think it's too out of the ordinary for them to pass along resumes with lower GPAs of kids who went to name brand schools (Harvard, Michigan, state flagship) for interviews and toss out slightly higher GPAs from schools they have never heard of because they don't know what they're getting from those other kids.</p>
<p>Undergrad is great for networking, and the quality of the school will likely mean better opportunities. Researching under someone with a genius grant as an undergrad is going to look extremely impressive to employers and you will learn invaluable things that you couldn't get anywhere else. That is how schools like MIT and Stanford are better than your average school. At the same time, so few people have the combination of drive and intelligence to take advantage of the connections that they do and/or can make, that it is irrelevant for many (and yes, that includes people at ivy league schools). Also, certain fields may make it better to geta good undergrad degree. If you're going into academia take a look at the education of professors for schools in the top 50. All are extremely well educated</p>
<p>The myth here is that going to harvard or a high ranked school is going to make you set for life. The fact of the matter is is that a decade out of school your actual degree will matter very little.</p>
<p>Brown Man ... my thoughts ...</p>
<p>May not be true for everyone but ... a straight A student may indeed be intelligent and/or smart but he/she may have more unexplored upside potential. We as a society can not afford for them to waste their time when we have very important challenges that face us. An 18 year old straight A student is more than ready for real challenges. Keep it off the record for college if they wish but to really succeed they need to fail a few times ... actually many many times. How do they handle risk? How do they handle failure? How do they handle bad luck? Do they have what it takes to get past obstacles?</p>
<p>If a student is getting all As, frankly, I think it is a disservice to the student. </p>
<p>Ideally, the education system should be geared to varying abilities with a B+ being the best anyone can get. Actually when my kids were young and we were looking at private schools, we were coached to choose a school where a B+ would be a stretch for our children. ... this way they would stretch beyond their comfort zones and maybe even their natural ability.</p>
<p>phew ...</p>
<p>MQD -- how did it work out regarding the stretch to a B+ type school? I can also see that it is a delicate balance in which getting mostly Bs will cause the student to get so frustrated and down on themself that they stop giving their best effort... basically get depressed and give up.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
If a student is getting all As, frankly, I think it is a disservice to the student.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>If a student isn't working hard for all As, that is a disservice to the student. A kid who works rigorously for the As is learning one of the biggest lessons in life: action, consequence. Also, just because you are a straight A student doesn't mean you can't fail in other things, know how to fail, or take risks.</p>
<p>Apart from my parents, I feel that my undergraduate college (a small LAC) is the single most important influence in making me the person I am today. (Certainly not either one of my two Ivy grad institutions). That's why I think where you go matters.</p>
<p>pointoforder --</p>
<p>That is a very salient point. Large universities do little to actually shape the way a person thinks... that requires small discussion groups. It's smart in, smart out, with little transformation.</p>
<p>The older I get, the more I realize not much important happens in life in groups larger than about 20 people, and usually in groups of 8 or less.</p>
<p>dunninla ... </p>
<p>it all depends on the expectations. If the goal is the best possible education and not just getting As ... then there isn't a problem. Many of the gifted schools as well as the top boarding school actually do not give grades and they do not compute class placement either. They do give an indication how you are doing though. Their placements in college are based on the school's reputation/past successes and the rec from the GC/teachers which are based on overall performance. Many do not offer AP classes because they think it limits the educational experience. But it is generally understood by colleges that at these schools most all of their classes would be considered honors classes at other HSs.</p>
<p>I guess the goal is to get the emphasis off the grades and on to the learning. </p>
<p>I just worry that there is too much untapped potential with all of these smart straight A kids. Now of course I am grossly generalizing but you must admit it is quite amazing the number of "top" students. </p>
<p>There truly should only be a few hundred ... maybe a thousand ... at the top ... I guess we are just not sure where that top is any longer ... time to move it up.</p>
<p>what do you think ... this is obviously a stream of thought ... not a fine tuned argument.</p>
<p>Someone already mentioned it, but it is important - networking DOES matter. So if you attend say, a small (1,200) LAC or branch campus of a low-ranking public u, your networking prospects will be much worse than those of a nationally-ranked private university whose graduates are tight-knit and scattered across the globe in successful businesses and professions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Someone already mentioned it, but it is important - networking DOES matter. So if you attend say, a small (1,200) LAC or branch campus of a low-ranking public u, your networking prospects will be much worse than those of a nationally-ranked private university whose graduates are tight-knit and scattered across the globe in successful businesses and professions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem is, most nationally ranked private universities are large research universities, so the graduates from these schools might not be as "tight-knit" as you make them out to be.</p>