<p>
</p>
<p>I see it as saying the opposite: “These few undergraduate programs are not the center of the universe. If you really care about going to HYPSM for graduate school you can get there from a large number of places.”</p>
<p>PG, who is saying you or he should worry? Why does emotion always get dragged into these discussions? </p>
<p>The point some of us are making is that there is no guaranteed path to any end. But there are paths that can provide an environment that better nurtures your chances of reaching the desired destination. So if a student must diverge or decides to diverge from the supposedly expected/best/more-likely-to-succeed path, it is not the end of the world. There is no need for the student to fret and start stressing over how to remedy the unwanted divergence by shifting his focus to getting in an Ivy for grad school so he can be back on the “right” path. That said, there is nothing wrong with choosing the expected/best/more-likely-to-succeed path if you can and have the means to do so. It’s not wrong or elitist or morally suspect to do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the current obsession with the prestige of Supreme Court justices’ law schools is an (aberrational) artifact of dysfunctional Washington politics. Any Supreme Court nominee is going to face withering political attack these days, and any nominee without gold-plated credentials at every step of their career is vulnerable. That drives presidents to be extremely risk-averse, and only nominate people with the requisite gold-plated credentials. It has nothing to do with meritocracy, really; pretty much any lawyer will tell you that the best lawyers and judges aren’t always products of the top law schools. But the Yale and Harvard Law School nameplates provide political cover to minimize the political risk surrounding a Supreme court nomination. It wasn’t always this way.</p>
<p>The current Justices are all products of Yale (3) or Harvard (5) Law Schools, except Justice Ginsburg who earned her law degree at Columbia. But even quite recently it was more varied. Justice Stevens got his law degree from Northwestern; Rehnquist and O’Connor from Stanford. OK, still pretty elite territory. But Warren Burger, who served as Chief Justice from 1969 to 1986, got his law degree from William Mitchell College of Law in Saint Paul, MN. Thurgood Marshall got his law degree from Howard; Charles Evans Whittaker (on the Court 1957-1962) from the University of Missouri-Kansas City; John Marshall Harlan II (on the Court 1955-1961) from New York Law School; Earl Warren, UC Berkeley; Sherman Minton (1949-1956), Indiana U.; Tom C. Clark (1949-1967), Texas. Fred Vinson (on the Court 1946-1953) never went to law school at all; he became a lawyer the old fashioned way, by apprenticing. Wiley Rutledge (1943-1949) got his law degree from the University of Colorado. Robert Jackson (on the Court 1941-1954) never even attended college; he graduated high school, apprenticed as a high school teacher, taught high school, then apprenticed as a lawyer, rising in the profession to become general counsel for the IRS, assistant AG heading DOJ’s Tax Division, then Solicitor general, then Attorney General of the United States before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Must have been one heck of a lawyer; oh, and also politically well connected as a protege of FDR.</p>
<p>If the paralyzing political gridlock in Washington ever ceases, we’d see a return to normalcy, and not every Supreme Court nominee would need to be a graduate of Yale or Harvard Law School.</p>
<p>^^^^ Is it really surprising that Politics, the area which values image above substance, (kinda similar to acting, isn’t it?) would be so attached to the name brand universities in determining political advancement. Like it or not the Supreme Court is as much a political appointment as a legal one and it really should not be that surprising that it suffers from this.</p>
<p>Nicely said, bclintonk & NamelesStatistic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s how I see it too, Sue. Although I also understand PG’s point. Fortunately, most kids are smart enough to figure out between age 17 and 22+ that there are many paths they can take in life and many ways they can be successful. Things that matter tremendously when they are teenagers tend to be put in perspective when they have a few life experiences under their belts.</p>
<p>The part of the “You can always go to for grad school” statement that I strongly disagree with is the “always” part. This is what gives the false impression that the student in question can just waltz right in to the very best grad/professional programs in the country with little or no difficulty. </p>
<p>It would be far more accurate to say “If you are very lucky plus you work very hard and earn really killer grades in college and do great on your admissions exams then there is an outside chance you might be able to go to (highly selective school) for grad school.” </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And even Justice Ginsburg got the majority of her law school education at Harvard, transferring to Columbia for her senior year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s implied, courier. Only an idiot would think otherwise. The point of the statement is to reassure ambitious teenagers that their life is not over if their dream does not come true at age 18, and to help take off some of the pressure that in some cases has been building since birth. In fact, there is another thread running right now concerning a girl who actually said she will take her own life if she doesn’t get into a prestigious college. And even though she hasn’t applied or been accepted to colleges yet, she has already attempted suicide. This is why some of us work very hard to counsel kids to take the long view and not buy into the “HYPSM or bust” myths so prevalent here.</p>
<p>I always thought this saying referred to the fact that most people care most about where you obtained your terminal degree. So spend the most and work the hardest to get into the best school you can for your final degree Most people don’t care or don’t know where their physician went to undergrad, but do care where he went to medical school.</p>
<p>Unless money is no object, which is the case for some but not most, don’t blow the wad on high priced undergraduate schools when you have professional and graduate schools in your future.</p>
<p>Most HYPS graduates can’t get into grad school at HYPS.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Nope. It says exactly the opposite. “Always” means always. It doesn’t mean “maybe if a whole bunch of high achievements and long-shot chances all fall into place for you.”</p>
<p>
I’ll vouch for that. The director of graduate studies was really quite nice when she told me that, frankly, I would not be a competitive applicant for the graduate program. </p>
<p>But I did get into some very good graduate schools, including UNC, U.Va., Columbia and Northwestern.</p>
<p>Always in that context does not mean what you think it does.
“3. at any rate : in any event <you can=”" always="" try="" again="">" Merriam Webster</you></p>
<p>I agree with coureur. The context is one of saying “don’t worry, you can easily (always) redeem this lost opportunity later.” As if grad school is the same experience. Or else it’s “there’s no need to spend all that money for HYPS undergrad when it would be better spent on HYPS graduate school.” As if somehow getting in to an even higher level program in 4 years will be oh so much easier, and as if clearly it was a complete and utter fluke the person was rejected so next time s/he will be admitted for sure.</p>
<p>barrons is right about the meaning of “always” in the context of this thread. It’s simply part of an expression, like “there’s always tomorrow.”</p>
<p>Apparently it bothers some people here that some students who didn’t win the elite-school lottery the first time might have another opportunity later. Or at least that is how I am reading it.</p>
<p>The odds of a college junior remembering that some poster on an anonymous admissions forum told him he could go to an Ivy for grad school are close to non existent.</p>
<p>Yup, we are really burned up at the prospect some hypothetical students somewhere in the US who were misguidedly comforted by an anonymous poster or real life busybody, will one day, years hence, get into a good grad school.</p>
<p>On the contrary, all the emotional energy expended trying to devalue the experience at elite schools, as well as the minimizing of the accomplishments of some extraordinary young people by suggesting their admission was a chance-based “lottery” and not a competition, only serves to reinforce the idea that the elite schools must really be quite special to warrant the attacks.</p>
<p>Perception is a funny thing.</p>
<p>TheGFG, no one is trying to “devalue” the experience at elite schools. Many of us attended them or have kids or friends who did, and we respect the opportunities they provide. But many of us also have enough faith in our own kids that we don’t think they will have fewer options or live a circumscribed life if they don’t want to apply to elite schools for their undergraduate degree or don’t get in if they do. Are there extraordinary young people at HYPSM? Absolutely. But there are far more, in sheer numbers, outside of that group. And whether you like it or not, it’s a fact that students in top PhD programs, med schools, and law schools come from ALL KINDS of undergraduate backgrounds–just as they do in business.</p>
<p>I’m certainly not devaluing the experience of elite schools.</p>