<p>My D's top three were Harvard, Yale and Georgetown. She's going to Harvard, but if she'd not gotten in there, she'd have chosen Georgetown over Yale.</p>
<p>I hire a lot of recent grads and I purposefully try not to hire students from the best schools. They tend to be far less balanced. In the real world, you have to have street smarts, and if you spend 4 years obsessing over grades and class/school rank, you won't have the skills to actually get a job and advance your career.</p>
<p>Chicagoboy12 wrote: "i turned down cornell for a non-ivy and my friend who is obsessed with rankings tells me all the time i made a bad choice because EVERYONE knows/respects the ivy league and i will have doors opened for me for my whole life. what do i say back? "OK"</p>
<p>You tell them an open door makes very little difference in life... it gets you an extra inteview or two. You earn a job DURING the inteview, not in the classroom. You keep a job by doing your job a little better than the average person in your position (not in the classroom). You advance past others in a career by working a little harder, a little smarter, or both than others, and certainly not by the name on the degree. Five years out of school the ONLY thing that matters is the esteem and recommendations of people who are in a position to move a person forward in that career. As often as not in business, the person advancing is a person WHO DID NOT ATTEND A NAME SCHOOL. Of course academia has its own rules.</p>
<p>Then there is of course the study showing Harvard admits who went elsewhere... whose career performance was identical to those admitted and also matriculated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nearly every school is filled with rejects of higher ranked schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ridiculous. Y'know, once you get to Georgetown, you're going to instead find that nearly every school is filled with Georgetown students. Amazing.</p>
<p>Looking at all of your peers as rejects is not the way you're going to want to start out college.</p>
<p>Georgetown has a lot of unique things to offer, and people who were intrigued by those unique things turned down other schools to GO to Georgetown. That's what you're going to find once you get there.</p>
<p>You are not going to find a bunch of people who are traumatized and moping around because they didn't get into HYPSM. That's just goofy... So you're not going to want to start feeling unsettled because you didn't go to a higher-ranked college, because you're gonna be awfully lonely if you adopt that outlook!</p>
<p>That's right . . . and I understand that NFL scouts immediately rule out any athletes who are big and fast because hey, it's all come so easily to them that they probably won't have the work ethic for pro football. :-)</p>
<p>gadad... the more fitting analysis is big, fast athletes who simply are not good in game situations. Perhaps all their lives they have worked to hone their strength and flexibility, explosiveness and speed, but THEY CAN"T SHOOT A FREE THROW.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how much correlation there is, beyond the level of intelligence needed to graduate from any top 250 college, between the traits required for admittance to a top 20 school, and performance in a non-academic job. Jobs like sales, starting a business, managing a company, things like that -- where street smarts are every bit as important as classroom intelligence.</p>
<p>And I believe the poster who "makes a point to not hire from the best schools" might be referring to a job which requires this balance of classroom/street smarts. Certainly not an analyst or consulting position, but sales, for example, is notorious for chewing up smart people and leaving them as insecure heaps who wonder what went wrong.</p>
<p>The corollary to the "US News-Induced Inferiority Complex!" is the false sense of superiority some succumb to. </p>
<p>An education from a so-called 'prestigious' institution is incomplete and arguably deficient if it doesn't include the wisdom to know that there are hundreds of top-quality colleges beyond a single athletic conference.</p>
<p>Georgetown has had a higher matriculation rate among admits than Chicago, Northwestern or WashU for as long as I've been following these things, without the benefit of an ED program. I'm guessing the reason might be that there is a cohort of people with a specific interest in law or politics. The Catholic pull may be there for some, as well.</p>
<p>Who here has been pining to go to Tennessee State University? Or Cal State Long Beach? Who is hoping to get into a top ranked school only to drop out after freshman year? I'm guessing not too many. Yet those are the alma maters of Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and the path of Bill Gates. They didn't do so badly. And they didn't pin their identities on their school's identity.</p>
<p>The success you'll earn in the future is in your own hands. Do not mistake the reputation of a brand name school for your own reputation. You have to forge that one yourself. Go and enjoy your four years in college and every day ask--what opportunity is there for me to grab today? Turn your gaze away from the numbers on the page of a magazine and toward your bright and open future.</p>
<p>While Oprah would probably not be less successful had she attended an Ivy, I doubt she could possibly be more successful than she already has been having received her education at a state school in Tennessee.</p>
<p>I have said this before in other threads/forums. The rankings are media events that are designed to sell media (mags, newspapers, tv shows etc.). Look carefully at the criteria for the ranks and see if they really matter. Some are really bogus. For example, some use teaching quality based on talking to students. Whatever rank a student gives for his or her university, how is it comparable to that for another university. How does he/she know that the teaching quality is say a B, if he/she never went to U of Michigan, or ND, or NW. Clearly this can be gamed. Smarter students aware of this know that regardless of what they think saying teaching gets an A, and anything else they are asked about will get a high ranking which is good for them. </p>
<p>Similarly, there are biases. Schools with good (high test/grade profiles) are ranked higher (most often private U's). However, if you have students with 2400 SAT's in, it is hard to screw them up. If you carefully look at syllabi from any decent school, you will notice they are very similar for a given course. That means an average kid going to a state u, may actually learn more, than a person going to a top school. That is there is really more teaching and learning going on. Think about it and look at where most urban universities (who are doing a great job taking really tough cases and giving them an education) are ranked.</p>
<p>Basically, we have a society that is obsessed with rankings like they were the word from on high. As many have pointed out, you can get a great education from any number of really good schools (and there are a lot to choose from).</p>
<p>Saying that there is no correlation between attending a top school and success is blatantly ignorant. If you personally are amazing, then you can do great things wherever you go. If you are say a film genius (Spielberg), or computer magician (Steve Jobs) then you will most likely be fine. If you are a smart, talented person, but are not amazing a top school will guarantee a good career in many cases, and allow you to network with many truly amazing people, since they end up at those kind of schools a lot. </p>
<p>The bottom line is you can do great things from Cal State Long Beach, but you are going to have a much greater chance of to do them at top schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The people who took the survey were not actual cross-admits. Your conclusion was incorrect. Please refer to the original study. By the way, the study had strong east coast bias, as one CC member pointed out:</p>
<p>Quote:
They surveyed just 3000 students and only students from a relative handful of "feeder" high schools with large numbers of students getting accepted to the "top" schools. The very nature of the sample, because it over-represents wealthy, northeastern prep and suburban high schools, is going to produce the same-old results. The methodology penalizes schools outside of the northeast, public universities, and any school that is not "old-money". </p>
<p>I seriously doubt 62% of NU-GT and higher % of Chicago-GT cross-admits would pick GT. Maybe if the person is choosing between SFS at GT and poli sci at NU/Chicago. But for econ, engineering, or anything in arts and sciences, NO WAY!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I, too, seriously doubt that students are choosing Brown over Columbia, since Columbia is far better academically, but apparently that's what's happening. I don't think you can argue an east-coast bias there. Preference does not correlate perfectly with academic quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, Sam Lee's completely right on this topic. Actually, the funny thing is how few people have apparently read the study; it's full of disclaimers of its own methodology.</p>
<p>I would give my right leg to go to Georgetown.
I've been waiting weeks now on the slim hope that I'll be one in a million that Georgetown allows in upon appeal.
I hope you realize how good you have it, you and your elitism are really disgusting.</p>
<p>ElderCookies, there is at least one well-documented study that suggests persuasively that it is the individual, no matter what school they attend, that determines success. You may look at well-known schools and point to all the success stories, but the most selective schools often get first pick at whom to admit and they in most cases select candidates who already have within them the qualities that will lead to success. In other words, whether a smart and motivated kid attends the prestige school or not, they are shown to succeed at the same level. </p>
<p>I am often saddened to see kids here who think it is School A or B who will give them their dream life. It is not so. The elite schools select kids that already have within them the qualities to be successful. And even then, they only can predict this if the student is extraordinary throughout high school. Many don't really bloom until later, so the elite schools pass them by. </p>
<p>"The bottom line is you can do great things from Cal State Long Beach, but you are going to have a much greater chance of to do them at top schools."</p>
<p>Not so. The bottom line is that great kids do well. Period. Those who choose to go to top schools will bring honor to those schools when they graduate. And when it comes down to choosing between schools like Georgetown and another excellent elite school what extra-good quality of life exactly do you think one will offer over the other?</p>
<p>There is a great deal of fantasy-thinking in the minds of teenagers who have been lured to believe a prestige school will bring them success. Graduating from an elite school is not a guarantee. I have a friend with her degree from Princeton who is still trying to make a living. </p>
<p>I know it is very hard to give up thinking there are guarantees in life, but the good news is there are many paths to the good things you want. Enjoy the journey.</p>
<p>go to the school you like the most... is there more to it than that?</p>
<p>ElderCookies -- Not true. The data say otherwise.</p>
<p>YOu sorta sound like a Jr. High girl with a crush on a teen idol -- except your idol is a marquee school.</p>
<p>It just doesn't work that way except in a few Wall St. jobs -- and only then for analyst entry level spots. For 99.9% of people making over $100,000 per year, it is simply irrelevant where you attended college.</p>
<p>The study you refer to is no doubt the one in which it was found those who were admitted to top colleges, and choose not to go did as well as those who did matriculate correct madbean? I suppose that we shall rest the entire controversy upon one study with highly questionable methodology with no further supporting data. </p>
<p>"The bottom line is that great kids do well. Period. Those who choose to go to top schools will bring honor to those schools when they graduate. And when it comes down to choosing between schools like Georgetown and another excellent elite school what extra-good quality of life exactly do you think one will offer over the other?"</p>
<p>I was not talking about Georgetown vs say Brown or another great school. Those schools are so close they are not very different in terms of opportunities offered to students. I am speaking hear of the difference in a third tier college, and a Georgetown. There is a very real difference, and to deny this is very misleading. </p>
<p>Mainly this difference has a great deal to do with your future career. Can you be an ambassador to France if you go to a third tier school? Yes! It is likely? Thats a no. I-banking jobs, and admission to excellent grad schools etc is open to someone with an elite degree. If you want to be a teacher say then it is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Truly great people do great anywhere, but most of us are not incredible or amazing. </p>
<p>I am fairly unbiased as well since Im only going to NYU (fairly good but not amazing or anything). I am not going to a super elite college, but am able to admit those who do have a lot of extra opportunities. They are not guaranteed success though I agree. </p>
<p>BTW DunninLa my dad makes 500K a year and did not go to an elite school. His degree is third tier. I fully understand a lot of people don't give a crap where you went to school.</p>
<p>My father studied engineering at MIT.</p>
<p>Where did his boss get his degree? UC Davis.</p>
<p>Just a bit more anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I love bagels that's a good point about how nearly every school is filled with rejects of higher ranked schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well of course it is, I'm brilliant :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
I, too, seriously doubt that students are choosing Brown over Columbia, since Columbia is far better academically, but apparently that's what's happening.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some students may be turned off by the big-city hustle and bustle of NYC and prefer a more conventional, community-building campus scene. Or maybe they like the idea of no curriculum instead of a Core curriculum. Different strokes for different folks...</p>