Preference for selective schools?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>The average SAT score in the incoming freshman class at a relatively small school cannot be construed to mean there are more talented people there. In terms of total numbers, state flagships generally have more talent available than smaller "elite" schools. Our company most actively recruits at 30 "top" schools...and only 10 of those meet the traditional cc definition of "elite privates"....the other 20 are relatively large publics.</p>

<p>Yes, if we "threw darts at random" into the school to select new-hires, we might do better to stick with just the elite privates. But it just doesn't work that way.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

Then you'd be wrong. Hell, even making $80k as an analyst at a no-name boutique consulting firm is WORSE than making $65k as an analyst at a top-tier strategy consulting firm -- especially if one's goal is to eventually go into strategy/business development at large, F500-type organizations. And yes, there are people that try to trade-up all the time... sometimes unsuccessfully. It's not unheard of for former Oliver Wyman, Booz, Deloitte, Accenture, etc. associates to gain acceptance to a top MBA program in order to get a crack at the elite strategy firms. The experiences at and exposure to c-suite clients at a McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Monitor (or even a Parthenon, ZS Associates, LEK, etc.) relative to a random "mom-and-pop" firm are totally unmatched. The exit opportunities and recognition across industries within the former category totally blow those of the latter out of the water. Needless to say, the screening processes aren't the same either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Brand name schmand name. Happy, productive employment is the objective, IMO. It doesn't matter where.

[/quote]

I love how simplistic the touchy-feely positions are. "It doesn't matter where you go, it's what you do there." Or, "happy, productive employment is the objective." Sure, making big money or prestige seeking aren't the goals for every college graduate out there -- nor should they be. But to say that job A provides exactly the same benefits as job B would be a mistake, especially if one were to use salary as the primary/sole measuring stick. "Happy, productive employment" and "working for an elite organization that instantly unlocks doors to other opportunities" aren't mutually exclusive. You can say that being lucky enough to have both is a one in a <insert obscenely="" large="" number="" here=""> chance -- but I'd argue that's where selectivity and prestige come in... to provide a better shot at such a position, provided it's what you're looking for.</insert></p>

<p>
[quote]
Our company most actively recruits at 30 "top" schools...and only 10 of those meet the traditional cc definition of "elite privates"....the other 20 are relatively large publics.

[/quote]

That's largely a function of the quantity and quality of spots you're looking to fill. My company (a F250 organization), when looking to hire MBAs, only recruits at a handful of American business schools within the top 10 in addition to several leading international programs. Of course, when hiring engineers, we recruit all over as the bar is lower and quantity is higher.</p>

23

<p>^^ Agreed.</p>

<p>People always throw out stuff like go with your passion or the best fit. Yet, most colleges are incredibly similar...I mean other than location and minor differences in the student body schools like Stanford, Wash U, the Ivies, Duke, Northwestern and so on aren't really so different. So the way I look at it, if I can be happy at a broad section of these schools (which I believe most people can) then why not go to the "best" school I can get into. Especially if finances are not a concern, going to the best school you get into will pay off in the long run with jobs and salaries. You can be successfull from anywhere, but it definitely helps to go to a top undergrad school. Selectivity usually correlates with prestige and the strength of a student body so I would always encourage anyone to go to the best school they can (usually same as selectivity rate) unless there were major reasons they would not be happy there. For Instance I would not be happy at Chicago so I am not applying, but I would be happy at any Ivy except Dartmouth or Cornell so I am applying...Go the best school you will be happy at and that is the best of both worlds.</p>

24

<p>CIA, good analogy!</p>

<p>Bescraze says:
[quote]
Go the best school you will be happy at and that is the best of both worlds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, with the following caveat: Which is the best school? Check carefully into each college you are considering. Think about what really goes into the 'selectivity' and 'prestige' rankings for each school. Are a school's rankings more about their ability to market themselves? About the USNWR rankings that many think are invalid? About 'name' or 'prestige' of the graduate schools, yet where the undergraduates don't get the best education?</p>

<p>What's most important is that you think about which colleges provide the right match for you. It's important to look at an institution’s academics, commitment to education, availability of good mentoring and advising, quality of teaching, culture, opportunities, values, social life, etc. Do the faculty value teaching? Are they rewarded for teaching quality or mainly for their research? Are students taught mostly by TAs?</p>

<p>Remember:</p>

<ol>
<li>You don’t need to get into the ivy league to be successful in life. </li>
<li>The college/university you graduate from does not determine who you are and how you contribute to the world.</li>
</ol>

<p>This says it all: <a href="http://www.educationconservancy.org/smallposter.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educationconservancy.org/smallposter.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Consider these earlier posts: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/491954-don-t-let-prestige-lead-you-wrong-college-please-3.html?highlight=hawkette%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/491954-don-t-let-prestige-lead-you-wrong-college-please-3.html?highlight=hawkette&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Consider the important work of the Education Conservancy, a non profit committed to improving the college admissions process: Education</a> Conservancy </p>

<p>and the book, College Unranked: College</a> Unranked</p>

25

<p>I agree with what you're saying ... schools shouldn't be chosen on prestige and selectivity and you've cited great points in your argument. That's why I've become curious about many CCers' favoritism for more selective schools.</p>

<p>Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, maybe schools that are selective have become selective because they receive a lot of applications and have a high yield. Kids apply and choose to enroll at a school because they prefer the school. So maybe its not that colleges are preferred because they're selective, but instead that that colleges are selective because they are preferred. Maybe that's the reason for the correlation.</p>

26

<p>^^obviously, but its a self-perpetuating process. When a school is seen as selective, more kids naturally apply for the prestige factor. Yet, how did that school get selective? By having certain things about it that attracted a lot of kids.</p>

<p>Also people here are way too pc about rankings...they do matter and prestige is extremely important.</p>

27

<p>What do you think about when Yale expands enrollment by about 200 kids per class (for high school class of 2011 students)? Will Yale be seen as less preferable because it's insignificantly less selective (perhaps 1-2% difference), or will more kids flock to apply to Yale?</p>

28

<p>calicartel, </p>

<p>Obviously I've struck a nerve with you. I think you have an emotional attachment to your position, whereas I'm merely practical with mine. </p>

<p>I'm not going to discuss this any further. It will go around in circles. There is no single right answer. No one will win and it doesn't even matter anyway. </p>

<p>I'm sorry to have gotten you all fired up. I wish you and your children all the best with your high-quality, high-profile, F250 careers. </p>

<p>And I mean that sincerely. :)</p>

29

<p>It seems that the individuals that most vigorously defend the elitist perspective come from MBA programs, and in the process, seem to belittle individuals coming from more rigorous academic majors. When I was a grad student at MIT, my friends at Harvard B-school would joke about how silly this attitude was given how easy their program was compared with mine….but , of course, they are the ones making the money now. And it is far rarer to find arrogant engineers and scientists, and I for one have enormous respect for many of my world-class colleagues from a variety of schools, and it would be inane to judge them by the school name printed on their diploma. But science and engineering are more results-oriented and not so prestige-obsessed.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
Will Yale be seen as less preferable because it's insignificantly less selective (perhaps 1-2% difference), or will more kids flock to apply to Yale?

[/quote]

that's a great question. If they receive a big jump in applications, I would think it'd, be because many students like yale for yale and now thought they could have a reasonable shot in the admissions process. (Although 1-2% is insigificant, the publicity would lead lead many students to think this way) Prestige-wise a 2% admit rate difference may seem insignificant to most people, it could be important to some. On the "A case for D U K E" thread, some students (or at least excited pre-frosh) were arguing about a 2% admit rate difference between Cornell and Duke.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But science and engineering are more results-oriented and not so prestige-obsessed.

[/quote]

I've noticed this myself. I went on a tour at Cornell where the guide showed us little of the university. Instead she went on and on about the "Ivy League" and cited stats that compared Cornell to other ivy schools. Later that day, I went to an engineering specific tour. Only students entering the College of Engineering were on the tour and the tour was led by engineers. On the engineers' tour, the guides never mentioned the ivy league and never compared Cornell to another college. Instead they focussed on some the the unique labs and research projects at Cornell.</p>

31

<p>Schools can be better than others, even if their acceptance rate is higher. Most people consider Penn to be better than brown/dartmouth, which have lower acceptance rate. Just an example, but acceptance rate is not everything.....prestige takes into account endowment, job opportunities ect..</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
Obviously I've struck a nerve with you. I think you have an emotional attachment to your position, whereas I'm merely practical with mine.

[/quote]

No reason to apologize -- no nerve was struck (and even if there was, that's not a reason to apologize). Ironically, I believe my position to be practical as well:) I wish the best to you and yours.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It seems that the individuals that most vigorously defend the elitist perspective come from MBA programs, and in the process, seem to belittle individuals coming from more rigorous academic majors. When I was a grad student at MIT, my friends at Harvard B-school would joke about how silly this attitude was given how easy their program was compared with mine….but , of course, they are the ones making the money now. And it is far rarer to find arrogant engineers and scientists, and I for one have enormous respect for many of my world-class colleagues from a variety of schools, and it would be inane to judge them by the school name printed on their diploma. But science and engineering are more results-oriented and not so prestige-obsessed.

[/quote]

I'm sorry that you chose to misinterpret my position as that of being elitist or arrogant. If anything, I've been much more impressed with (and humbled by) the accomplishments of 18-22 year old enlisted Marines with nothing more than high school diplomas during my time in Iraq than what I've observed from the majority of HBS or MIT or whatever-school-you-want grads. But hey, I'm sure that various grad programs at MIT are comparably vigorous so what do I know? (By the way, I fully realize that I'm putting words in your mouth... you can say that I'm just that returning the favor :) )
As I mentioned before, what you perceive as an elitist attitude is really a practical approach born out of a desire to practice efficiency given limited resources. If a company has 50 highly competitive/coveted spots to fill nationwide, it only makes sense to focus your recruiting efforts and resources on a select pool where the yield will likely be better (and it doesn't get more results oriented than that.) Why waste time and money on schools where you won't get the most bang for your buck? Of course, that's not to say that you can't find equally good talent elsewhere -- you can -- but the simple fact is that your yield will be lower given a less qualified applicant pool.<br>
It has nothing to do with engineers/scientists <em>supposedly</em> being more humble than MBAs -- though I'll admit that I did find that little jab highly amusing and humorous.</p>