<p>
</p>
<p>For anyone who wants to know what PG really did say:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14310478-post21.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14310478-post21.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That looks like a misinterpretation /twisting/editing of what pizzagirl said. She can explain her intent.</p>
<p>A huge point is being missed here. CEO’s of companies, and other successful people are more likely to have their kids go to top 20 schools. Those kids do not always get in on merit. Those kids turn around and already have connections to become CEOs, or high level executives. I have never known a CEO who got there just because of their great resume. You get there because of who you know. So, a nobody, who goes to a top 20 school, might make connections there that can lead to great success. But simply attending a top 20 school is not really going to up those chances. I have known CEOs who went to lower than tier 1 schools but got there because of who they knew. I bet people like Bill Gates’ children, Donald Trump’s children, and so on, could go anywhere, or even no where, and their future employment opportunities would be the same.</p>
<p>When I think of the “best” people I know, if/where they went to college is never a factor. Bright(est) students may attend top tier colleges, but to suggest that they are the “best” is requires a very, very narrow definition of what “best” means.</p>
<p>Yes. I said that the education (of the type I’m “buying” for my children at 2 elite schools) is a luxury good. That does not mean that the REASON I’m buying it is for status / prestige (or eventual make-more-money concerns), nor does it mean that I don’t believe there to be meaningful differences between the quality of the offering at those kinds of schools and the offering at “lower” schools. </p>
<p>My Baume & Mercier watch is a luxury good compared to my Swatch, as both of them tell me the time; however, my B&M watch is also a higher quality watch. A stay at the Ritz is a luxury good compared to a stay at the Holiday Inn, as both of them provide me with a bed and a shower; however, the Ritz stay is also a higher quality experience. You keep wanting to pretend there are no differences since it makes you feel better about what you can’t afford. There’s no shame in not being able to afford certain things, that’s how life works at times, but it is disingenuous to pretend that there aren’t differences, and it’s particularly disingenuous when you’ve invested in the equivalent of an “elite college” experience for your daughter in high school. Maybe you only did it because it was relatively inexpensive for you as it’s a public magnet school; would it have been worth it if you’d had to pay a lot for it? Maybe, maybe not - it’s not for me to speak for your finances - but your attitude seems to be the equivalent of the kind of person who couldn’t afford an IMSA and said, “Well, it’s really not any better than my public hs anyway.” Of course it is. IMSA’s better than your public hs, and it’s better than my public hs. Likewise, some colleges are better than others. That’s how it goes. Whether or not you can personally afford them doesn’t change anything.</p>
<p>
What I always gathered from AD’s posts was that he doesn’t believe that (metaphorically) his local high school even provides walls or indoor plumbing, let alone a bed and a shower. So when he was comped at the Ritz it was a no-brainer. I don’t think he sees anywhere near the same disparity between the typical state U and a top college. Others do, obviously.</p>
<p>This is the funniest thread on CC in a long time. </p>
<p>How a story about a Loyola Chicago grad giving $40 million to his alma mater has morphed into people citing studies, statistics and feverishly trying to justify why elite schools are still better despite the “anecdotal” evidence of this rich Loyola grad.</p>
<p>^^^^
Probably the last time was when there was a thread covering pretty much exactly the same debate with pretty much all the same studies cited.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The two are not inconsistent. Elite schools can still provide more opportunities and a better education, on balance - AND a student can attend a non-elite school and do absolutely fine and indeed stellar in life. This is a big fat duh, which is why it’s odd that anyone would post the $40 MM Loyola guy as “proof” of anything. There’s no need to “prove” non-elite school contenders can do extremely well in the workplace, duh, and the existence of his success doesn’t mean that there is no difference between Loyola and Harvard.</p>
<p>As I type this from my superior keyboard, I’m wondering… can you tell? </p>
<p>Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. Some fires just call out for more oil.</p>
<p>It is completely unsurprising that a McDonald’s Corporation bazillionaire happened to attend a non-top-20 school. It would be fairly unsurprising if he’d attended no college at all. Read Ray Kroc’s bio.</p>
<p>There are people that don’t realize that the big corporations, such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Target, etc, actually have to hire CPAs, attorneys, executives, etc. And, these companies do recruit at many, many schools.</p>
<p>“A huge point is being missed here. CEO’s of companies, and other successful people are more likely to have their kids go to top 20 schools.”
-Not clear at all why my kid would consider this statistics (or for that matter any statistics at all including ranking) in her decision making. She took time researching and visiting places under her OWN criteria for consideration. She disregarded both college advisor at HS and pre-med advisor in college and included their suggestions ONLY if they satisfied her own criterial. I cannot see how successful search should be based on where famous and rich people send thier kids. These places apparently satisfied these kids’ and their parents criteria which might be completely different from criteria of others.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids,
Very good point. To add to that, many , many companies hire locally. Most engineering companies hire locally. My huge international company hire to North American headquarters (happen to be in my hometown) locally…with very decent pay too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MiamiDAP,</p>
<p>As usual, you have completely missed the point of that post you cited. Are you even reading the whole thread before commenting?</p>
<p>I was commenting on one sentence and that was the reason for including this sentence. I did not attempt to comment on whole thread or even the post.<br>
Sorry to outrage you so deeply by my comments.</p>
<p>
No, but YOU can. That’s sort of my point in all this.</p>
<p>"MiamiDAP,</p>
<p>As usual, you have completely missed the point of that post you cited. Are you even reading the whole thread before commenting?" Patsmom</p>
<p>What’s your point, PATSMOM? How many people read the whole thread before commenting?</p>
<p>And, I totally agree with Miami.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Exactly. Having a certain experience may very well be worth paying for even if someone else can’t “tell” by other markers (such as how much money that someone makes or other external markers of success). I want my kids to have the experience of being on a traditional college campus with a “thick” concentration of very smart, accomplished kids. That doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world if I couldn’t afford it, or that people don’t do just fine without that experience, but I value it highly and I think it’s generally better than going to an “eh” school.</p>
<p>parent1986- It is very helpful to read enough of a thread to at least understand the point, which helps in responding in a way that makes some sense.</p>
<p>Especially in the case of THIS thread, the title alone is a little misleading.</p>
<p>When people post things that are non-responsive and/or flat out wrong, it is permissible to point this out and make corrections. If your mind works the same way as another poster’s and you agree, how nice for you!</p>