<p>"It's what you do when you get there that counts . . . Either way, if you're thinking about college quality in terms of rankings or prestige, you're looking at it all wrong."</p>
<p>Where</a> You Go To College Doesn't Matter - Forbes.com</p>
<p>Thank you for posting this article, Dave. Sometimes in the middle of all this insanity, it's good to take a step back and look at the big picture of what is really important in helping your child make college choices.</p>
<p>I do step back sometimes and this all doesn't seem like such a big deal any more. But then I find myself sucked back in to the stress, the details, the worry, etc.</p>
<p>Excellent article, thank you for posting it. My son just got back from a college visit at a less well known school where he was warmly received and would fit in beautifully. Then a rejection letter from an elite college showed up and he barely shrugged his shoulders.
I think he instinctively knows that where he goes does not really matter. It really is about what you do when you get there. </p>
<p>And for everyone receiving rejection letters:</p>
<p>Anyone else find it hypocritical that someone who is an admissions counselor and a senior adviser to a site that's all about choosing colleges, would post a thread saying that "Where you go to college doesn't matter"?</p>
<p>I'm all for emphasizing that rankings and prestige aren't everything. But if you (general you) really believe that where you go to college is irrelevant, why are you on this site? now, obviously, that's not what the article is really saying. It is more complicated than that. But it's what is suggested by the title.</p>
<p>The article is a nice reality reminder for anyone obsessed with rank and prestige. </p>
<p>But there are plenty of people out there - like me - who are merely obsessed with the right fit. I don't care whether my kid goes to an Ivy or a directional school. I just want it to be RIGHT for him. And in that respect, where you go to college DOES matter.</p>
<p>I find my vacillating between worrying about where I'm going and thinking that I'll be fine wherever I end up going. Then I find myself hating myself for being such a hypocrite. FML</p>
<p>DougBetsy, good post. </p>
<p>Here's what I think. I think that many people are too caught up in the prestige/rankings factor. I think you can be a success no matter where you go to college. In that respect, where you go doesn't matter that much. </p>
<p>But I do think where you go to college matters in a different way.....certain schools would be a more ideal environment for an individual student. So, it matters where you go to school in terms of finding the most appropriate environment for yourself where you would be happy and thrive. </p>
<p>One example would be if you are a student who is very driven, craves challenge, highly motivated, enjoys being around an abundance of peers with a similar type of drive, you likely would be happpier in a more selective college setting. </p>
<p>Another example is if you have a very specific interest, you would want to find a college program within a university, that excels in that area. </p>
<p>And so on and so forth. </p>
<p>Prestige is not what matters but where you go to college matters for each student and finding the most suitable match is important.</p>
<p>Therefore, the title: "where you go to college doesn't matter" really is not true overall......and it depends on how you interpret..."doesn't matter"....doesn't matter in what respect?</p>
<p>blueducky.....I do believe that a student could be happy at many different schools and I find that too many students are caught up in "I have to go to X school or else" as if that is the only school where they would be happy. It is not. Having a "must have" school can be a recipe for disappointment. The best scenario is to like many schools....your entire college list in fact. You can be happy at more than just your favorite school! </p>
<p>I find other students who have an "Ivy or bust" mentality as if they have to go to an Ivy or Ivy-like school in order to be successful. This is not true.</p>
<p>I think the point of the article was captured in this sentence:</p>
<p>"But what's most important in the quality of your college experience is your willingness to engage in your education, commit to learning and actively take part in classes that challenge you."</p>
<p>When you think about it, only a small percentage of students (out of all students) go to those "prestige" colleges. Does that mean the majority of students don't get a good education or have good opportunities for careers? I like this article. I think all high school seniors should read it!</p>
<p>Yes, I find it hypocritical too, jessiehl. It most definitely does matter, and in some cases and for some kids it can matter quite a lot. However, that assertion is not equivalent to a fatalistic, defeatist statement that, once rejected from an elite school, from now on and forever the student's life will be less-than-ideal. How the student responds makes a huge difference, and success can be achieved in many ways and from vastly different points of departure. Nonetheless, a degree from Slippery Rock State College--regardless of how hard the student worked there--will not do for you what a Harvard degree will. But, neither is a HYPS acceptance some kind of magic pill guaranteeing eternal fulfillment. Besides, if you lack the requisite qualifications, then HYPS etc. are completely irrelevant. In that sense, finding the place you fit is indeed a step to self-discovery.</p>
<p>At least from my standpoint, the key is finding out how set your matriculating college freshman is on a major.</p>
<p>My D was accepted with a big scholarship to a small liberal arts college that specialized in the arts. D was very much involved in show choir & theatre but did not think that a major in fine arts was in the cards--in short, she just wasn't sure what she wanted to major in, which I have to think is common among 18 year olds.</p>
<p>So, when she was accepted to a big, competitive flagship university in a nearby state (but with no scholarship), that was her choice because there would be numerous majors she could choose from, and could easily switch to if one didn't work out.</p>
<p>The CGF: I think the more realistic comparison would be, as posted elsewhere, Northwestern vs. Wisconsin or George Washington U.</p>
<p>Sure, there are perhaps 10-12 I-banks and consulting firms that might not recruit <em>at all</em> at GWU or UW that have a regular schedule at NU... I'll agree that for those 10-12 targeted employers, where you go does matter in terms of getting access to the interview.</p>
<p>99.9% of really good paying and rewarding careers are not at those 10-12 firms.... so in broad stroke I absolutely agree with the article, and take a tangent from it as well. </p>
<p>In youth sports, the normal advice for best-fit team choice is to pick the best possible team on which the athlete will start, or at least get significant playing time. Riding the bench sucks, but that's where the bottom third of any team spends most of its time. It is better to be a starter on the JV than a bench warmer on Varsity, as this thinking goes. Sitting the bench increases the difference in skill level between those who start and those who do not, simply by virtue of increased opportunities to develop game-skills in game situations.</p>
<p>Let's take this over to college. </p>
<p>Would you rather a student attend Princeton, in the bottom third of the accepted class, or Northwestern/Wash U/Hopkins, in the top third? What if the bottom third student at Princeton gets no access to 1-1 with professors in a research setting, but a top third at NU does?</p>
<p>Would you rather a student attend Stanford, in the bottom third of the accepted class, or UCLA Honors/USC, in the top 20%? What if the bottom third student at Stanford gets no access to 1-1 with professors in the finance/econ area, no recommendations for summer internships, etc. (by virture of not being a standout), but a top 20% at UCLA/USD does get such opportunities? </p>
<p>In each case, where would the student be more likely to thrive?</p>
<p>Which would you choose is both cases?</p>
<p>soozievt, I like your posts in this thread and agree with much of what you're saying.</p>
<p>I think it's important to emphasize two points. Many people on CC seem to live by one or the other, but I think they're both necessary.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You can be a success and be happy starting from any college situation, including not getting in <em>anywhere</em>. And getting into a top school is not a ticket to happiness. Many people would in fact be better off and more successful at a school that is not in the US News Top 20.</p></li>
<li><p>What college you go to will have a profound impact on the academic opportunities that are given to you, your social development, your peer group, what companies turn up at your career fairs, etc.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Those might sound contradictory, but they aren't. There are a lot of paths to end up at the same happy place in life. Some of them are longer and bumpier than others, but they're all doable if you walk them right. There are obvious pros and cons to both the smooth paths and the rocky ones.</p>
<p>MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: "For the Not Admitted Students"</p>
<p>^Great article by one of the MIT bloggers, I really recommend reading it :).</p>
<p>of course I meant the GFG ---</p>
<p>Where you go to college does matter. It just depends on what's important to you. One can talk about fit forever, and one can point to all the successful graduates of "less prestigious" schools, but the reality is - some people/employers worship at the altar of the prestige degree. That may or may not matter to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone else find it hypocritical
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't find it hypocritical at all. And Dave Berry, one of the two persons to whom your innuendo refers, has been quite consistent here for years in reminding students that there are a lot of opportunities for good education in a lot of colleges that are not famous colleges. </p>
<p>I might point out from a logician's standpoint that even if the conclusion (it doesn't matter where you go to college) is true, I don't think the evidence mentioned in the submitted article is sufficient evidence to make that point. Maybe in most other cases besides the anecdotes reported, or for some significant minority of students, it matters A LOT where you go to college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In youth sports, the normal advice for best-fit team choice is to pick the best possible team on which the athlete will start, or at least get significant playing time. Riding the bench sucks, but that's where the bottom third of any team spends most of its time. It is better to be a starter on the JV than a bench warmer on Varsity, as this thinking goes. Sitting the bench increases the difference in skill level between those who start and those who do not, simply by virtue of increased opportunities to develop game-skills in game situations.</p>
<p>Let's take this over to college. </p>
<p>Would you rather a student attend Princeton, in the bottom third of the accepted class, or Northwestern/Wash U/Hopkins, in the top third? What if the bottom third student at Princeton gets no access to 1-1 with professors in a research setting, but a top third at NU does?</p>
<p>Would you rather a student attend Stanford, in the bottom third of the accepted class, or UCLA Honors/USC, in the top 20%? What if the bottom third student at Stanford gets no access to 1-1 with professors in the finance/econ area, no recommendations for summer internships, etc. (by virture of not being a standout), but a top 20% at UCLA/USD does get such opportunities? </p>
<p>In each case, where would the student be more likely to thrive?</p>
<p>Which would you choose is both cases?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Disclaimer: No personal experience, just posting what I have heard or read. </p>
<p>Some people thrive when they are in the bottom third and find themselves surrounded by (attending class or team practice with) high achievers. That is, a benchwarmer in varsity will strive to keep-up with the first string and thereby improve his skills. Likewise, a kid who gets into his reach school can thrive by modeling the study/learning behavior of the top-of-class scholars. If that weren't possible, why would we even need a category of "reach" schools?</p>
<p>I'm not disputing what DunninLA proposes. I'm just saying there is more than one way to look at it.</p>
<p>College choice does matter to the individual for personal reasons rather than simply how high the college is ranked. Prestige doesn't matter so much as a fit for a students personality. Some students flourish in small classrooms, some in large. It's important to make decisions based on your learning style, the diversity of the college, what kind of courses they offer for your major, and location.</p>
<p>Another has to do with finances. I think this is one of the larger components to choosing a college that is right for you. It's no use choosing one that is going to break your (or your parents) back just trying to pay for the semester. Also, there are scholarships that you can qualify for that are specific to certain colleges.</p>
<p>Where you go to college DOES matter. However, if you go to a great school and flunk out and/or are not that exceptional, it won't matter much in the long run.</p>