<p>I've observed that the most heavily favored colleges on CC are HYPSM which also happen to have the lowest admit rates. Is there a correlation here? On CC I've witnessed this preference for more selective colleges. On some "college A vs. College B" threads, I've seen people suggest that College A should be chosen because it is more selective. Why do students (especially those on CC) typically want to go to selective colleges simply because they are more selective?</p>
<p>Because it makes them feel like they're better than you when they get in and you don't.</p>
<p>^ I sincerely hope that America's best High school students aren't making important decisions about their college education based on whether they can say "I'm better than you because I got in and you didn't"</p>
<p>Well, it's not for that reason, exactly. Unfortunately, some of them do prefer the selective colleges due to prestige. More selectivity means more prestige in addition to the already imposed brand name. Like for example, Harvard. It has a good name...and it's low selectivity adds to the "wow" factor. Sadly, some students only care about that. Not that they're wrong...probably just misinformed and don't understand that there's more to colleges than prestige.</p>
<p>It's not solely prestige. Generally speaking, school A's higher selectivity signifies that it has a stronger student body (as measured by intellectual horsepower, drive, potential, etc.) over that of a less selective school B. If, as an employer, I want to hire the best and the brightest, I would prefer to devote my limited recruiting resources to the area(s) where I believe I would have the highest and best yield for my efforts. Thus, if I could only recruit at one school -- and school A has more qualified candidates than school B does, I'm more likely to go to the former.
Simplistically speaking, attending a more selective school has a signaling effect as to one's ability to contribute. Companies can (and do) use universities as a pre-screen for applicant quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
attending a more selective school has a signaling effect as to one's ability to contribute.
[/quote]
^ That's an interesting point. However, I'm not sure I agree with it. Measuring the quality of students by the schools selectivity is a shaky business. First of all it implies that the factors used in college admissions are relevant to potential as a employee. Do the questions on the SAT look like they could indicate who's more qualified to present a new idea to the boss? Is high school GPA an indicator of how well an employee can interact with clients?</p>
<p>Keeping in mind, I'm saying that within context. Someone who slacked off in High school and gets a 2.4 GPA is likely to be less qualified and a college filled with such students would likely not be recruited by major companies. There is a significant difference in the student quality between Berkeley and Oklahoma State (and inherently the companies that recruit there). The difference between selectivity at, say, Stanford and Berkeley is small and the companies that recruit at Berkeley or Stanford tend to recruit at the other. So why do students (esp. those on CC) make this selectivity difference to be a big deal?</p>
<p>Hmm, so do you think it has to do with prestige, now? I mean, people speak of the Ivy League as if it's one thing, not a set of eight colleges. "OMG Are these stats good enough for the Ivies???" Some also consider HYP as a set, like they are stuck to each other as if they are one college of something. Or HYPSM or anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so do you think it has to do with prestige
[/quote]
That's what I'm trying to figure out with this thread. I was looking for opinions of students who chose (or felt the should choose) a college because it is more selective. Do those students do so because of prestige or another reason?</p>
<p>If you want a different perspective try the University of Chicago threads. Students seem to want to go there more for the learning experience than the prestige (it is one of the top 10 universities in the US and though highly selective, their acceptance rate is over 30% of a self-selected pool of applicants).</p>
<p>
[quote]
...If, as an employer, I want to hire the best and the brightest, I would prefer to devote my limited recruiting resources to the area(s) where I believe I would have the highest and best yield for my efforts. Thus, if I could only recruit at one school -- and school A has more qualified candidates than school B does, I'm more likely to go to the former....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've read that position many times on CC and it just doesn't hold much credibility with me. Well, at least not 100%. </p>
<p>I suppose if an employer is recruiting close to the office then, yes, a student at the local Ivy would look better than the student at the local state U. In my market, it would be JHU v. Towson, for example. </p>
<p>But, there are many fine schools that local recruiters probably haven't heard of. If a Davidson/Bowdoin/Middlebury/etc grad returns home to Maryland and is competing against a Towson grad for a job, there's very little if any advantage for the kid from the elite school. Most people around here have never heard of the others. They're excellent schools. But still don't mean much to the first-line screener in the employment office. </p>
<p>So, no. I will not be advising my kids to use "employer perception" a college search criterion when the time comes. Maybe, just maybe, it can the 3rd or 4th tie breaker. But, it's such a wild card item, I'm not gonna put much emphasis on it.</p>
<p>^^ The students at U Chicago tend to have high SATs, so the perception is that the acceptance rate is a reflection of a very self-selecting applicant pool. for that reason I wouldn't say U Chicago is an example of a popular selective college</p>
<p>^ If better job prospects don't come with a more selective school, then what is the reason they tend to be preferred? Anyone who advised someone to enroll at a college because it was more selective care to comment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If better job prospects don't come with a more selective school, then what is the reason they tend to be preferred?
[/quote]
If you're talking about positions at the most competitive firms/industries (eg., consulting, investment banking, private equity, etc.), then the better job prospects most definitely do come with the more selective/prestigious school. Case in point: I had a buddy at a top five b-school whose fiancee at a top 10-15-ish school was complaining about the relative shortage of quality companies/positions being offered by recruiters showing up on her campus. Check out the list of companies recruiting at universities with varying selectivity and you'll see some noticeable differences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a Davidson/Bowdoin/Middlebury/etc grad returns home to Maryland and is competing against a Towson grad for a job, there's very little if any advantage for the kid from the elite school. Most people around here have never heard of the others. They're excellent schools. But still don't mean much to the first-line screener in the employment office.
[/quote]
That would depend on the job and position. If it's a regular run-of-the-mill type of job that any bloke off the street can walk in and apply for, I totally agree. But for highly competitive positions at brand name companies (most of which can be found on any list of "most desirable employers"), employer "perception" is reality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That would depend on the job and position. If it's a regular run-of-the-mill type of job that any bloke off the street can walk in and apply for, I totally agree. But for highly competitive positions at brand name companies (most of which can be found on any list of "most desirable employers"), employer "perception" is reality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure. But...</p>
<p>If the odds of getting into an elite school are (just throwing out a number) 5,000:1. </p>
<p>And the odds of landing a "run of the mill" job instead of a "highly competitive brand name" job are (just another number) 1,000:1</p>
<p>Then, I'd say the odds of the two of those factors aligning in favor of the student are too long to bank on. </p>
<p>Don't misunderstand me. I have nothing against elite schools. It would be nice if my kids got into one. I just don't think doing it in hopes of landing a "highly competitive brand name" job is a compelling reason. </p>
<p>BAs from tier 2 can get brand name jobs. And, conversely, BAs from elite schools can end up at $10/hour.</p>
<p>"I just don't think doing it in hopes of landing a "highly competitive brand name" job is a compelling reason."</p>
<p>But is the desire to land that local job back home a compelling enough reason to decide against attending an elite school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
BAs from tier 2 can get brand name jobs. And, conversely, BAs from elite schools can end up at $10/hour.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't doubt that both can (and do) happen. But the fact of the matter is, BAs from tier 2 have much more difficult paths to brand name companies (assuming that's what they're looking for) -- especially if those brand name companies only recruit at tier 1 schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do students (especially those on CC) typically want to go to selective colleges simply because they are more selective?
[/quote]
I wouldn't assume that. My major, for example, is only offered at 8 elite colleges (Yale, Penn, Brown, Chicago, JHU, Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley). I simply didn't have very much flexibility in choosing colleges.</p>
<p>Many less wealthy applicants apply to selective colleges because they are more likely to receive financial aid.</p>
<p>Think beyond ‘selectivity’! Where will you be happiest? Which colleges provide the right match for you?</p>
<p>There are many wonderful colleges/universities. There are a number of colleges that would be a good fit for each student and where each student would be happy. </p>
<p>Follow your passion, be who you are, and you will end up in the right place for you. You will be happier along your journey in life.</p>
<p>Consider this great thread (that someone commented was the best thread on cc):</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/529299-all-those-rejected-harvard-princeton-yale-community-college.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/529299-all-those-rejected-harvard-princeton-yale-community-college.html</a> See, especially, post #1 of this thread.</p>
<p>Where you go to college does not determine who you are as a person, your worth, the job you get, nor your contributions to this world.</p>
<p>Exactly. Where you go to school does not determine how successful you are.</p>
<p>George W. Bush graduated from Yale while Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College. Which of these presidents is regarded more highly?</p>
<p>Colleges are more selective if they have more applicants for the number of spots. Now to get those more applicants in the first place the college much have positive factors that attract students.</p>
<p>While prestige and selectivity don't directly translate into educational quality and desirability, they aren't entirely unrelated either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But is the desire to land that local job back home a compelling enough reason to decide against attending an elite school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope. I never said anything about ruling OUT an elite. I DID say I have nothing against elites and it would be nice if my own kids went to one. </p>
<p>I'm ONLY saying that "you'll get a better job coming out of an elite" is a pretty flimsy argument for choosing one. That's all. </p>
<p>To me, making $30K entry level (yes, with benefits) at the local mom-n-pop accounting firm is no different than making $30K entry level at Booz Allen. </p>
<p>Brand name schmand name. Happy, productive employment is the objective, IMO. It doesn't matter where.</p>