I guess I question the accuracy of the premise-- there are many extremely successful people that are not Ivy leagues graduates.
When you start out on 3rd base it’s easier to get a run.
But…an Ivy league grad I know is currently in prison. A Stanford grad I knew became an alcoholic and ended his life working at WalMart.
Individuals do more to determine their own destinies than the college they attended.
The question should be: Why Ivy grads are hired more in certain government positions? The government should be seeking more diversity.
My guess is, if you look into it, you’ll find that in most of the cases you are thinking of, per OP, it was the person’s last degree that was the launching point for their big career. Their JD, MBA, MD, whatever.
Many of the “better” and most selective graduate and professional programs include Ivy league universities.
The undergrads do relatively well as a group, IIRC, but most people do not achieve the kind of fame or “top” spot you are referring to.
That they do relatively well as a group is probably in no small part due to the fact that they were admitted to a selective college because there were already indications that they were likely to do well.
According to the OP Stanford grads don’t count, @TatinG . They were never expected to wield power or influence or have money because Stanford is not an Ivy. So drink away, Trees! You’ll never amount to anything anyway!
(Unless maybe they go to an Ivy for grad school. Then they might have a shot at a decent life.)
Are you suggesting Stanford is a “lower tier private”? Or a “state school”?
Otherwise, OP post #1 does not apply to it. As I read post #1.
Now if you want to substitute “UC Berkeley”, or “U Michigan” for Stanford…
But maybe no graduates of those schools become alcoholics.
OP left out an entire group of colleges that are neither Ivy nor public nor lower tier private and I pointed this out earlier. But the question was specifically about what makes Ivy Grads more successful, not MIT or Stanford or Williams or Caltech grads. I suppose OP considers them lower tier privates.
As a Harvard grad, I’d say the basic premise of the question is dubious. But the real question behind the question surely is why do Ivy’s have this special mystique and assuming it is true why? I think most of us are saying that while they are great schools, with excellent networking possibilities, that there is a limit to what a school can do to make you “successful” - however you decide to define the word.
re#25, you may suppose that, but nothing in post #1 states that, or even implies it. To me. YMMV.
That’s like if a post states “I think U Michigan is “better” than Pace University”, and then someone responds, “So you think U Mich is “better” than Stanford, I disagree. By not mentioning Stanford, you obviously suggest it is the same as Pace U.” Whereas, in my opinion, OP not mentioning Stanford means Stanford is not part of this particular comparison, that’s all.
Of course I agree that there are a good number of schools that are peers, or “betters”, to schools that play sports in the Ivy league. And if OP thought otherwise, that would be a mistake. I just don’t believe OP necessarily did think otherwise. OP didn’t state otherwise.
Elizabeth Warren got her undergraduate degree from University of Houston and her law degree at Rutgers. That didn’t stop her from later on teaching at Harvard Law. Mike Pence attended Indiana University and McKinney school at law. That didn’t stop him from being a congressman, governor or Vice President. The idea that “power” can only originate from an Ivy League school ignores so many examples of powerful people who never attended one.
Furthermore, an undergraduate from a lesser known school won’t prevent entry to an Ivy if that is the goal. I know a senior from one of those “mediocre” schools who give merit aid who has been accepted to Harvard Law. A classmate is heading off to Stanford (not that it’s an Ivy…) And even Clarence Thomas started at College of the Holy Cross before heading off to Yale for law school.
(Sorry that all my examples are politicians. I was a policy sci major 
)
There’s nothing wrong with Ivies (especially if you can afford them) but not attending one is certainly not the end of the world no matter what your long term goal is.
@SugarlessCandy I have friends and family members who are Ivy grads and to be honest with you, they are all leading regular lives. Some are juggling careers and family, some are dealing with personal problems, others are home full time with their kids, etc. It’s not like their lives are so much “better” than the non-Ivy grads. Some are, some aren’t. And everybody’s definition of “better” is different.
I have a family member who did her undergrad and graduate work at an Ivy League school. Her husband graduated from a high ranking LAC and makes a regular salary doing what he enjoys. She currently stays home with their two kids and they all live in a small apartment and share one car. They are both very happy. Not all Ivy League grads live the life that you imagine.
@delilahxc: Not to mention that law and b-schools have their own elite groupings that are not “Ivy League”. Only half of the T6 are Ivies. Less than half the M7 are Ivies. Obviously, 9 of the T14 aren’t Ivies (and 3-4 of them are even publics; the horror!)
Saying you want to attend an Ivy for law or b-school is the surest way to show that you don’t know much.
I literally have no idea what any of that meant. I’m glad that there is no level of ivy desire growing anywhere in my kid’s heads 
I asked about Ivy grads, not undergrads and I didn’t imply that all success originates there and other schools don’t produce people who end up being leaders in their fields.
I was listening to a podcast and they mentioned how Ivy schools have an extraordinary high numbers of alumni leading their fields.
Well, if you can get in to the top law/b-schools, you’ve already shown a high potential for success in those fields.
That’s kind of like asking why Juilliard and Curtis have so many alums in Big 5 orchestras. If you were sucky at playing an instrument, you wouldn’t have gotten in to those conservatories in the first place.
34, Agreed,.
With the caveat that these days most law schools are over-emphasizing LSAT scores to feed the US News beast, so overall potential for success, beyond that test score, may be less weighted than in previous eras.
Read the OP @SugarlessCandy. You asked about Ivy “alums” and you did not specify grad school or professional school.
@monydad well…except Harvard Law which will now accept the GRE in lieu of the LSAT.
Sigh. Most CEOs did not graduate from a top school.
Furthermore, “grads” is often coloquially used to refer to graduates of any program, whether undergraduate or graduate. That was not clear.
I am reminded of the financial aid thread where the argument laid out in the first post progressively morphed over the following pages…gotta be specific on the internet or people won’t get your meaning.
This again?
Try to find the thread(s) that go over allll the power wielders and influencers who didn’t go Ivy.
It’s just so narrow to take well known college names and make assumptions that that’s the only game. A parent’s energy is better spent learning where her own kid will be empowered, grow, leap forward. Did you ever get a Fiske? Learn what the other 42 great colleges are, not just 8 of the hardest to get into. Try to do this right.