<p>Because it seems to strike me that most end up going on to "another cog in the machine"-type jobs -- yet another unremarkable lawyer or chemical engineer, etc. </p>
<p>I guess I used to think that the "top school" graduates were the type to end up having a dozen papers to their name by the age of 30 and be pre-eminent researchers, etc.</p>
<p>Sure they end up having a comfortable income, but is that at all success?</p>
<p>How did "Exciting" become large income? Your question regarded excitement.</p>
<p>Screw top schools! Go to Podunk State and live a fun life!</p>
<p>Yes, exciting. (Which I suppose, is a measure of success.) </p>
<p>Which is my point exactly. Large income != success </p>
<p>That is, I hate the remarks that go "well, don't worry -- even if you don't get in, I am sure you will be successful in life," -- as though somehow holding yet another mundane [though lucrative] white collar position is "success".</p>
<p>Different people define success differently. For some, it may indeed be a large income, regardless of they do for a career. For you, it's excitement. For me, it's simply being great at what I do. </p>
<p>And I'll bet you that are quite a few trial lawyers out there that will dispute your claim that their field lacks excitement. I graduated with a civil engineering degree and am working in the construction field, which I find to be exciting, which others may not. Frankly, I would find being a researcher for the rest of my life to be quite boring.</p>
<p>Not only is success different for each person, but so is excitement.</p>
<p>Well, if you look at top CEOs, very few went to Ivys or other top tier schools.</p>
<p>Then again, people who go to, say, West Point, have a guaranteed exciting 5 year career.</p>
<p>Oh yea? Some I can name of the top of my head: Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, the founder of facebook, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett....</p>
<p>Well, the Fortune 50 (Source: Where</a> the Fortune 50 CEOs Went to College - TIME) looks more like this:
You see the same amount of people from UTexas as from Harvard, and there are people from Brigham Young, CUNY, etc.</p>
<p>"Exciting" is in the eye of the beholder.</p>
<p>Most PEOPLE go on to cog-in-the-machine jobs (some of which can be exciting in their own right). The Ivies and other top tier schools may open a few doors, but they don't guarantee anything...the experience, and the benefits that you can get from going to such a school, are what you make of them. And you still have to find them yourself...they might be easier to find, but they don't get handed to you.</p>
<p>I don't get your point Galosien. Are you implying that if people want "exciting" careers that they don't have to go to an Ivy. Well of course, no one HAS to go to an Ivy. But if you're implying that all people with Ivy degrees mindlessly go into the huge machine as little cogs, you're quite misinformed. Or are you implying that the Ivy education gets wasted since not everyone graduating becomes "exciting?"</p>
<p>Amongst my classmates (of my graduating year) some of the celebrities are: Anderson Cooper (CNN 360 and 60 minutes correspondent), Paul Giamatti and Ron Livingston (actors). Among my close group of friends: ex Dept of Justice Asst Attorney General who oversaw Enron and post 9/11 shakeups, law school classmate of Barack Obama and founder of a huge after-school tutoring program in several Eastern cities. One roommate is content to live out life in the theatre circuit in CA occasionally appearing on TV, two have become ministers, there are businessmen and lawyers and professors. My goodness, several are ONLY homemakers! (How dare they squander their Ivy education) Sorry if we're too boring for you. I wouldn't trade a second with these fine people for your "more exciting" folks.</p>
<p>I better end this post. The more I think about it, the more insulted I become.</p>
<p>I didn't imply "all" -- I stated, "most." </p>
<p>Naturally, out of the dozens of people (or hundreds probably) you became acquainted with there, you remember the most remarkable ones. </p>
<p>
[quote]
there are businessmen and lawyers and professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, naturally. </p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with being a homemaker either, if you published papers in your spare time ...</p>
<p>Sorry dude. We Ivy Untermenschen dunt rite too good. We's havin chilluns and raisin them. Deys got to eats, too. I gots to get down to Wall Street or the Federal Court house to get paid.</p>
<p>I'll go tell my homemaker friends just to put their heads in the gas oven OK?</p>
<p>(and people think that Ivy leaguers are snobs? LOL)</p>
<p>Yale
Swarthmore
UChicago
MIT
UPenn
NYU</p>
<p>Looking at your past threads, these seem to be some of the schools you've applied to.Hypocrite.</p>
<p>No, I was simply considering if the hype was worth it. You don't understand my thread's purpose. This is post-application reflection, I suppose. I'm not digging at Ivy Leaguers in particular -- I am just wondering if they're really just like most other scholars actually, because my initial impression had been where everyone was at the forefront of their field.</p>
<p>Regarding comment #13, I was searching for a good linguistics programme -- there's only one Ivy in there, and that's because Penn has linguists like William Labov and Mark Liberman. (Yale wasn't even part of my choices, wth?)</p>
<p>T26E4: I think you're overly sensitive to the extent you totally misinterpreted what I meant.</p>
<p>My initial impression of the top schools had been that their students were at the forefront of their field, pushing the boundaries of knowledge.</p>
<p>Even if some become homemakers, I would expect them to be the inquisitive type to notice an interesting phenomenon in the backyard and call some peers to investigate and write up a paper, and be the type to store enzyme laboratories in their garages. Even if you're a homemaker, you would still be at the forefront of your field...</p>
<p>Of course, this impression is based somewhat on a transferrence of the concept from my country's "top scholar" programmes to the Americans'.</p>
<p>The Ivies don't advance you that much by themselves. A little, sure (a big name can be useful) but not much. What they do is provide an environment that is highly conducive to you advancing yourself.</p>
<p>The Ivies and similar schools have higher concentrations of talent, sure, but you seem to have this weird expectation that all the people at those institutions should have been on top, with everyone else below. That's not how it works.</p>
<p>Not to mention, your definition of "top" is pretty screwy. From what you've said, it seems largely based on how many papers someone has published. What is wrong with being an extremely competent, well-trained lawyer or chemical engineer? Why do you perceive these fields as inherently unglamorous? Why do you (apparently) think the life of a successful academic is inherently glamorous? Academia has plenty of drudgery, politics, etc, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's nothing wrong with being a homemaker either, if you published papers in your spare time ...
[/quote]
Hah. Pathetic.</p>
<p>I dunno... Three high school teachers I know graduated from Harvard</p>
<p>"ven if some become homemakers, I would expect them to be the inquisitive type to notice an interesting phenomenon in the backyard and call some peers to investigate and write up a paper, and be the type to store enzyme laboratories in their garages. Even if you're a homemaker, you would still be at the forefront of your field..."</p>
<p>???? Believe it or not, Ivy Leaguers aren't know for producing researchers at least not in the way you're imagining. They are known for producing people who tend to be independent thinkers with leadership and a lot of internal motivation to follow their own dreams, and the thinking skills to do the research to back up their ideas and dreams (and this kind of research is a bit different from what you're imagining). </p>
<p>So... the homemaker you're imagining is likely to be an active leader on several organizations, including the PTA if she has kids in school. She may be creating an innovative fundraising project and organizing the effort. She may be a strong advocate for a change in the school's curriculum, and she would have done the extra work to provide documentation for why that change is necessary. She may also be a leader in national or state organizations having to do with her community service and other interests.</p>
<p>She also could be a mom who's a dedicated, creative homeschooler who may be writing textbooks to use with her kids, may be creating innovative teaching methods, and may be doing lots of research on her own to find out the best ways of teaching her kids. She would be passionate about whatever path she has chosen, and would be doing far more in that path than would many people who made that choice. </p>
<p>What she is doing would be exciting to her, but it may not be of interest to many other people without that particular passion.</p>
<p>Hmm, I guess I'm going to have to go back and see if all those PTA officers have Ivy degrees. (Sheesh)</p>
<p>Some Ivy grads have the drive to make it big. Some grads of every University have the drive to make it big. Some people with no college degree at all have the drive to make it big. Some Ivy grads got in from many years of hard work in high school, with lots of support from their parents, that basically get the degree and wander off down lifes path doing exactly what folks from other places do. I'd guess they are just as happy or have just as exciting lives as others. No, and Ivy degree doesn't guarantee you exciting jobs or even happiness. You have to get those on your own.</p>
<p>(And yes, I know Ivy grads that are happy homemakers, play tennis, and drive their kids around. No, all Ivy grads are not over achievers in any sense of the word.)</p>