<p>MIT.</p>
<p>10chars.</p>
<p>I think the real value in going to a top school like HYPSM lies in two things: the opportunities, and the enjoyment factor. I'm going to Stanford next year, and one of the reasons I chose it is that it has an interdisciplinary flair to the science programs (and that's expressed in research programs, general flexibility, etc.), which will provide me with a lot of very good opportunities. The other reason is the simple enjoyment factor of being with so many interesting people; at Admit Weekend, I fell in with a group of people who (after going to a Stanford soccer game and a pseudo-dance) stayed up late talking about religion and philosophy. It felt like people had a trigger point or something; you'd just be goofing around or doing something routine when something would set someone off, and an incredibly interesting conversation filled with smarter people than I'd ever been surrounded with before would be born.</p>
<p>entropicgirl: I totally agree with you. One thing that happens in the conversations about the value of HYPSM, though, is whether or not it is worth the extra money. Some people come into it with a choice between paying an extra $15-20K per year in order to go to HYPSM over a state school. I realize that good FA at HYPSM may make it cheaper at HYPSM than at a state school, but if the FA isn't there, then they have to decide whether or not the extra money is a good investment. That is a lot of money for a more enjoyable time on the quad.</p>
<p>MIT (I think)</p>
<p>haha, i didn't see that there was a second page.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At any rate, it has always been statistically shown that graduates from Ivy League schools have a greater income over their lifetimes than others. This new study from about five years ago compared people who were accepted into an Ivy but decided to attend somewhere else against people who actually attended. The result was that there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The implication being that people who are able to be accepted into an Ivy are going to successful because of their builtin characteristics as opposed to the actual experience of attending.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>However, if you think carefully, you should notice a subtle, yet fatal flaw in the study. You have 2 groups of people - those who got into elite schools and matriculated, and those who got into elite schools and did not matriculate, and the assumption is that these are 2 groups are entirely equivalent (except for, obviously, where they matriculated).</p>
<p>However, I would argue that the 2 groups are entirely dissimilar and are thus not comparable. Why? Simple. The fact is, people who are admitted into one or more elite schools will tend to matriculate at one. Those who don't matriculate are themselves an unusual group of people. Think about it. If you get admitted into one or more elite schools but end up going elsewhere, I would argue that you are ATYPICAL of that group of people. That's right, atypical. In other words, those people probably have something else going on that would cause them to turn down an elite school. These people who turn down elite schools are not just randomly selected from the pool of students who get into elite schools. There is a very strong self-selectivity bias going on here. Those people who get into elite schools and choose not to go are a self-selected pool. </p>
<p>Let me give you an analogy. I'm aware of another anecdotal news article that said that those who went to Harvard and voluntarily dropped out may tend to be MORE successful than those who go to Harvard and graduate. This may seem shocking until you realize that it has to do with self-selectivity. Those Harvard students who choose to drop out do so usually because they've found something better to do. Like Bill Gates who found an opportunity in the computers. Or Matt Damon who found an opportunity in movies. Or Elisabeth Shue who also found an opportunity in movies (granted, she did end up returning and graduating when she was 37). Or Edwin Land, who found an opportunity in the photography industry and ended up founding Polaroid. Or Robert Frost who decided that instead of studying, he'd rather go live in the countryside and write poems. The point is, those people who dropped out of Harvard tended to do so because they had a strong conviction that they'd rather be doing something else. Hence they are not typical of your average Harvard student. They self-select themselves. </p>
<p>By the same token, that doesn't mean that if you go to Harvard and drop out, you're going to achieve the kind of success they did. They had good reasons for dropping out. If you don't also have good reasons, then you probably aren't going to achieve the kind of success they did.</p>
<p>Similarly, I would argue that those people who get into elite schools and don't go are not typical. Hence, they have been self-selected. They didn't just randomly choose to turn down an elite school. I'm fairly certain these people had reasons for choosing not to go to an elite school. Hence, the study is not really comparing two comparable populations. Just like Matt Damon and Elisabeth Shue didn't just randomly choose to drop out of Harvard - they had reasons for leaving Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Bill Gates is in some ways the luckiest man alive. When IBM came out with their new PC in the mid 1980's, they needed an operating system to go with it. IBM had traditionally made all of their money off of selling hardware and so they did not give a lot of thought to the OS. Bill Gates came in wearing a pair of tennis shoes and lied about having an OS ready. He then brought something close to what IBM wanted for $10K (a lot of money at the time but his family was well off). He modified what he had brought, then IBM made the biggest blunder in all of financial history by letting his keep the licensing rights to what became DOS. Gates deserves a lot of credit, but he was lucky and it had nothing to do with where he went to school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, everybody who makes it big benefits from some luck. Before Bill Gates, it was people like the Sultan of Brunei and J Paul Getty who were the richest men in the world. They had their share of luck too. </p>
<p>You also have to ask, why is it that IBM came to Bill Gates and not to somebody else? After all, there were thousands of little computer companies at the time. The reason is that Bill Gates and Microsoft had already established themselves through their success in creating programming languages like BASIC for the various personal computers at the time. In fact, at the time, Microsoft was the largest vendor of programming languages for personal computers, and Microsoft's BASIC was the first microprocessor software product to ever win the prestigious ICP Million Dollar Award. IBM learned of Microsoft because of it's success in programming languages and thought that if Microsoft was so good at making languages, it might also have an OS to sell. </p>
<p>So if Microsoft was lucky to have gotten the deal of the century, the fact of the matter is that Microsoft had also positioned itself well to benefit from something lucky. </p>
<p>Let's not also forget that it was also Gates's brilliant vision that made Microsoft the behemoth it is today. Yes, Microsoft benefitted greatly from the MS-Dos deal. However, it was Gates's vision that saw that PC's might be cloned, and so Gates retained the rights to MS-DOS and only offered a license to IBM, as opposed to selling MS-DOS outright. He probably could have gotten more immediate money from IBM from just selling it outright, but he saw that the rights to DOS might be more valuable than that immediate money, so he retained those rights. Basically, IBM never saw the clone-PC industry coming, but Gates did. Furthermore, Microsoft and IBM engaged in a brutal death match later when Microsoft was contractually obligated to help IBM produce and promote OS/2, and did so, but also secretly created Windows using OS/2 as a training ground for its programmers. At this time, IBM knew full well that software was a major cash cow, for they could see the kind of money that companies like Microsoft and Oracle were making. So they can't just fall back on the old excuse that they 'didn't know' that software could make money. They just basically got outplayed by Gates yet again. </p>
<p>However, whatever else you might say, I think we can all agree that while it may not have mattered to Bill Gates where he went to school, it clearly mattered a great deal to Steve Ballmer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing that bothers me about the brand-name concentration on HYPSM is that so many high schoolers talk about how they have spent their entire lives working towards the goal of getting into an Ivy, and make statements to the effect that once they get in, they will be set for life. It is as if they think that once they get in, they have joined a mystical society that will take care of them for the rest of their lives. All they have to do is make the secret handshake and people are going to guide them into CEO positions. One, this is sad. Two, it is wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, this one, I agree with wholeheartedly. Getting into an elite school does not by any means guarantee success. </p>
<p>However what is undeniable is that it improves the chances of success. The fact is, it helps. It does not close the deal by itself, but it is useful nonetheless.</p>
<p>I think the most likely reason for someone to be accepted to an Ivy and not go would be a lack of money. Comparing the average lifetime incomes of the two groups of people where both groups were accepted to Ivies, but the independent variable is whether they were actually able to attend, is about the best you can do in statistics.</p>
<p>As far as Bill Gates goes, he is a better businessman than I am. However, successful people when asked why they are successful often reply that it is the result of hard work, integrity, and a sense of purpose in making the world a better place. Often, that isn't true. Gates benefitted from one of the biggest business blunders in all of history. It is as if the Army at Fort Knox told the cleaning people to take all the gold out the vaults and keep it before they washed the floors. If Gates hadn't gotten the licensing rights to DOS, he would not be a bum on the street now, but he wouldn't be famous either. What he did when he wrote the code for DOS 1.0 could have been done by any 1st year programming student in under two weeks. Only an idiot would have failed to become very, very rich after they got the licensing rights to DOS. He did do very well afterwards, especially with the courts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the most likely reason for someone to be accepted to an Ivy and not go would be a lack of money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think this would be true only of the middle class. Rich people obviously have no worries. And as you mentioned already, poor people can and often do find that it is cheaper to go to a top private school because of the generous financial aid. I know some people whose cheapest choice for school turned out to be Harvard. </p>
<p>However, the salient point is that self-selectivity plays a tremendously strong role. Some people will choose to go to a lesser school over an elite school because they are interested in a highly strong and prestigious specialized program at the lesser school. For example, I know a lot of people who will happily turn down Harvard to get into one of those combined BS/MD programs at a lesser school. Heck, I'd probably do the same. Guaranteed admission to medical school (provided you maintain your eligibility) is nothing to sneeze at these days when med-school competition is white-hot. I'm sure there are people who turn down Harvard to attend, say, USC Film School. Or it may have to do with simple geographic opportunities. There are many young successful teen actors who could have gone to HYPSM but chose to go to school at UCLA or USC so that they could keep working. I'm sure that's also a reason why people like Matt Damon and Elisabeth Shue left Harvard - because they knew they wouldn't be successful in movies if they were always hanging around in Cambridge Mass. Cambridge is many things, but it is not exactly the best place to be to make it in the entertainment industry. If Harvard was located in LA, they might have stayed. </p>
<p>And then of course there is the whole issue of merit scholarships - which is slightly wrapped into the issue of money. I know lots of people who could have gone to top schools, but instead went to lesser schools that offered them a lot of money. Again, I'd probably be tempted to do the same. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as Bill Gates goes, he is a better businessman than I am. However, successful people when asked why they are successful often reply that it is the result of hard work, integrity, and a sense of purpose in making the world a better place. Often, that isn't true. Gates benefitted from one of the biggest business blunders in all of history. It is as if the Army at Fort Knox told the cleaning people to take all the gold out the vaults and keep it before they washed the floors. If Gates hadn't gotten the licensing rights to DOS, he would not be a bum on the street now, but he wouldn't be famous either. What he did when he wrote the code for DOS 1.0 could have been done by any 1st year programming student in under two weeks. Only an idiot would have failed to become very, very rich after they got the licensing rights to DOS. He did do very well afterwards, especially with the courts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but you have to ask why is it that he was the one who benefitted from the blunder, and not somebody else. Surely you've heard of the story of Gary Kildall and Digital Research. IBM actually went to Kildall, asking to buy CP/M, which was at the time the most successful OS for personal computers at the time. In fact, actually, when IBM went to Bill Gates asking for an OS, Bill Gates actually pointed IBM to Gary Kildall and told them that they should talk to Killdall as he had the best available OS at the time. So IBM did. For whatever reason, and there are numerous conflicting stories about what happened, but the point is that the deal was not made. So IBM went back to Gates, and that's when Gates went and bought QDos from Seattle Computer Products, modified it, and then licensed it to IBM.</p>
<p>So while I don't disagree that Bill Gates benefitted from luck, the fact is, he put himself in a position to be able to take advantage of his luck. He certainly was a better businessmen than Gary Killdall. After all, Kildall could have licensed CP/M at a low cost (in fact, Kildall DID eventually license CP/M to the IBM PC, but at an end-price that was so high that PC customers preferred PC's loaded with MSDOS, so yet again Bill Gates proved to be a better businessman than Gary Killdall). Or Kildall could have done exactly what Gates had done and bought QDos himself, modified it, and licensed it to IBM. He didn't do it. He chose not to do it. Bill Gates chose to do it. Gary Killdall had his chance to make the deal of the century, and he blew it. When Bill Gates had his chance, he didn't blow it. </p>
<p>Getting opportunities may come down to luck. But taking advantage of those opportunities comes down to ability. Gary Kildall did not take advantage of his opportunities. Bill Gates did. </p>
<p>Furthermore, again I have to point out why did IBM go to Microsoft in the first place? Why didn't they just go to Tim Paterson and Seattle Computer Products and buy QDos directly? Why go through a middleman if you don't have to? The reason was simple - IBM had actually heard of Microsoft, but had never heard of Seattle Computer Products and certainly didn't know that they had an OS for sale. And the reason why IBM had heard of Microsoft is that Microsoft had already established themselves as a major software player in the budding personal computer industry. Hence, Bill Gates had positioned Microsoft to receive a lucky offer. IBM didn't just choose to negotiate with Microsoft by drawing its name out of a hat. They wanted to negotiate with an important and established pc software vendor who they thought might have what they wanted. IBM already knew it needed programming languages for its new PC, so it had to go to Microsoft to get them anyway (Microsoft was the leader in that field). If Microsoft hadn't been a well-established software vendor, IBM would have never offered them the deal.</p>
<p>I'm not following the true meaning of this thread. On the one hand, there is research showing that people who are selected by the Ivies to attend and do not are just as successful monetarily as people who are selected to go and actually attend. On the other hand, there are people like Gates who drop out of Ivies and are very successful. On the third hand, there are people like Steve Ballmer who go to Ivies and are very successful because they meet people like Gates who dropped out. </p>
<p>I might add that at least one high school buddy of Gates who is a major player at Microsoft (Paul Allen).</p>
<p>Because like I said these are 3 groups of people that cannot be compared fairly. I would argue that the first two groups are entirely self-selective. You have the big set of people that consists of all the people who got into elite schools. Of that set of people, you have one small subset of people who attend but while they're at the elite school, they find something better to do like making movies or starting computer companies and so they drop out. Then you have another subset of people who ALREADY found something better to do before they stepped foot in the elite school, so they choose to never go to the elite school in the first place. Then you have the rest of the set, that consists of those people who haven't yet found anything better to do. For these people, I would argue that they are better off just going to and graduating from the elite school.</p>
<p>The point is that just because one person dropped out of Harvard and found success doesn't mean that you should drop out of Harvard. That guy who dropped out of Harvard did so for specific reasons, like seeing an opportunity in the computer industry. He didn't just drop out just 'for the hell of it'. </p>
<p>Similarly, I would argue that those people who get into an elite school but don't go probably chose not to go for very specific reasons. For example, he may have gotten into a BS/MD program somewhere. Or some no-name school offered him a lot of money. He didn't just choose not to go just 'for the hell of it'. He had strong reasons for not going. If you don't have similarly strong reasons, then you probably should not turn down an elite school. As a lemma, that is why the Mellon study is flawed because it doesn't account for the reasons behind why people who get into elite schools choose not to go. </p>
<p>Hence, the default option is, if you get into an elite school, you go there and you graduate from there. You choose a different path only if you have a strong reason for doing so. You don't just choose to randomly turn down a seat in an elite school for no reason. If you don't have any strong reason for turning down an elite school, then you should go.</p>