According to this, not really:
An interview with one guy, and some hand-waving generalities, isnât quite a rigorous analysis of the question.
I didnât read the article, but I can tell you that some of the most âsuccessfulâ people I know attended schools that many on CC would scoff at, while some of the most miserable people I know attended the brand name schools that everyone here loves.
I didnât read the article either but of course the answer is âit dependsâ. Some people will rise to the top regardless of where they land. Others need more scaffolding and the door opening potentials that a degree from a top school can give.
I got at least two jobs solely on the basis of my undergrad school where I didnât even do my professional studies!
It matters where you go, because a good fit usually leads to a successful career. However, there is little evidence that some truly objective ranking system exists in which certain schools guarantee a higher level of success to the majority of students who attend them.
Of course, what constitutes âsuccessâ? Some systems measure this by median income of graduates. However, colleges which are âfeederâ schools to PhD programs will have lower median income for their graduates than colleges which send students to business schools. So is being a full professor at UIUC less of a âsuccess storyâ than being an investment banker at Goldman-Sachs? Is a high school teacher less âsuccessfulâ than a civil engineer?
Of course, a magazine like Forbes is run by people who believe that success can only be measured by income, and, in their view, a high school teacher is never a real success, and being a professor of history is a failure, relative to being a hedge-fund manager.
If fact, most of the ranking systems are created by business people, so this philosophy permeates many of the ranking systems. Even ranking systems which use factors like research output still are using dollar amounts (or derivatives of this) as one of their major (if not the major) metric.
Even systems which supposedly measure the satisfaction that people have with their Alma Maters fall into this trap, by using âalumni givingâ as their main criteria for satisfaction.
Good comments. I get tired of the concept that money is the measure of success. I do suspect it is a lot easier to manage grad/professional school for those who go to the state flagship instead of the weakest school in the system. Notice that I am ignoring the many schools CCâers seem to consider as well. Oh, and is the richest doctor in town the best, or just better at making money?
I find it very telling when the OPâs kid did not get enough merit at more selective, higher ranked colleges (e.g. Tulane) and couldnât afford to go there, then tries to rationalize their decision by saying there is no difference in the quality of education at more selective colleges and continues to create threads 6 months later about âwhere you go to collegeâ doesnât matter?
Well I think it depends on the situation. Just to say it matters or not is not correct either. In some situations it might matter a lot. But hard work and proficiency trump just about anything. A clueless person from Yale is still a clueless person.
Dale and Kruger published a study that showed the status of the institution had less to do with success of the graduate than the individual themselves.
This old tired subject again?
Going through the College process with my kids, my impression is that, if there ever was a difference between the Harvardâs of the world and (pick your public school/non-elite private school), the gap has narrowed considerably. Schools are upping their game, and it is great to see.
The outcome studies focus on money because itâs the easiest thing to measure. Much harder to measure happiness, fulfillment, alternative universes where I attended a different school, etc.
As the Sociologist William Bruce Cameron once said, âIt would be nice if all of the data which sociologists require could be enumerated because then we could run them through IBM machines and draw charts as the economists do. However, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.â
We donât need anecdotes when there is plenty of data to answer this question.
Frank Bruniâs âWhere You Go Is Not Who Youâll Beâ discusses all the studies that show that in most cases, it doesnât matter. Students who were admitted to highly selective schools but didnât attend for one reason or another had exactly the same opportunities and success in life as students who did attend those schools.
The exception is for low-income and/or first gen and/or immigrant kids. For them, the Ivy (or Ivy equivalent) name on their diploma greatly increases their social capital, which then opens doors which otherwise would have remained closed to them.
I would also ague that attending an Ivy or the like âmattersâ if you want to be a Wall Street IB or attend a Top 10 law school. I suspect that the âold boys networkâ is still very much operable for those.
And no, @socaldad2002 , this is not sour grapes coming from me. As you know from the other thread that weâre both following, my Ivy League education did not help me one whit to get into med school. While I got a great education and had wonderful opportunities (and a great time!), my four years there didnât fundamentally alter my life trajectory in any way.
The OP started only one such thread, this one. Even if it were true, this is an ad hominem attack, as well as being snide. You should apologize to the OP.
Dale and Kruegerâs study found that applying to highly selective colleges, even if they rejected you, increased future earnings. This is a controversial result.
Apologize for what, all one has to do is view his other threads and see what is going on here. If you donât get into your highly selective college with enough merit, pivot and say âwhere you go to college doesnât matterâ. Really quite obvious with some, but not all, posters. Not sure how hard it is to acknowledge some highly selective colleges do a little better job of educating our kids and some employers, graduate schools, recognize this fact.
Itâs the same with high schools. My D20 goes to a very good, large public high school in LA but her peers attending Harvard-Westlake college prep high school (one of the best in the country) have much more depth and breadth to their curriculum, smaller class sizes, and top notch faculty. No doubt in my mind D20 would get a better college prep education there than her large public high school she attends. Not sure why its so hard for parents to admit that some colleges (and high schools) do a better job of education than othersâŠ?
There are also posters who do not have adult children, only have a high school sr, who post repeatedly with authority about the college application process, college classroom teaching across all types of colleges, college peer groups, and post-college outcomes. That is the nature of a chat board. You learn what to read as something you appreciate and what you read as SMH.
The linked video was by Bruni. I didnât listen to it, but that is b/c I am already very familiar with Bruni and agree with him. (and have real life children for whom what he states is true.)
People who are unfamiliar with Bruni might learn something from the video and the OP has good reason to share it.
@socaldad2002 You seem to consistently conflate âmore expensiveâ with âbetterâ. You act as though a place like Harvard is where every kid will automatically do better than if that same student went to, say, Berkeley, OSU, or Kenyon College.
There are a dozen reasons why a kid will do better and succeed at OSU or ASU than if they attend Yale or Harvard. Moreover, most private prestigious colleges donât have a whole list of majors, so how can a kid succeed if they are not able to pursue their interests and passions?
Different students have different needs, and do better in different environments. Even USNews accepts that, which is why it ranks LACs separately from research universities. To claim that there is some ârealâ hierarchy in the quality of colleges is to assume that kids are all carbon copies of each other.
Yes, there are better and worse colleges, but for all kids, the ranking is personal. It is true that there are a large number of colleges which are not very good, but there are hundreds of colleges, each which is the best college for a good number of kids. Yes, Harvard is the best college, for a certain subset of kids, and the same can be said of Wisconsin and TAMU.
I am very happy at the education that my kid is getting at Midd, but I have no doubt that she would be getting just as good an education at Macalester or Pitzer, which she really liked, or at UIUC or UMN if that was where she ended up attending. The education would have been different, but likely no worse.
BTW, I said the same thing before I knew which college my kid was attending: http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/21766717/#Comment_21766717
PS. Iâm not saying that every college out there is the best college for somebody. However, of the 2,000 or so non-profit four year colleges, there are many hundreds which are the best choice each, or close to the best choice, for hundreds to thousands of HS graduates looking to attend college.
A good college is one of the launcher/booster for personal success. Some do well from average schools, we donât know if they wouldâve quickly soared to even higher peaks if they attended a better school. Some do bad after attending good schools, no way of knowing if they wouldâve done worse from average schools.
However, on average, prestigious, selective, academically strong, resourceful wealthy colleges with top level faculty and top performing peers and good fit can serve you better if you take full advantage of opportunities offered to you.
If you are poor, first generation college student, minority or immigrant on aid then benefits are even higher. It can literally change your life.
What you study matters more than where you study, within reason. Engineering, Business, Nursing, CS, and the hard sciences pay a lot more than than the soft sciences and the remainder of liberal arts. All assuming that you only have an undergrad degree.
Being an electrician, plumber or other skilled trades pays better than all but the top university degrees too.
Certain firms only hire from certain universities, with some exceptions. Those are mostly the name brand firms in each industry, usually a small fraction of total employment. They only select a small number of top university graduates too. That might be a consideration if you already know what you want to do or work.
A lot of the statistics in overall career earnings donât consider that the students who attend highly ranked universities (even in english, philosophy, etc.) often go to graduate or professional school. Some schools specializing in technology also have higher earnings because of the mix of their majors.
One important consideration is the location of the university. Most hiring is fairly local, and wages are not the same everywhere. If you go to a NYC school, and work in NY, youâll have to earn a much higher salary to enjoy the same standard of living. The difference can be huge, 50% or more, so you have to adjust the figures to reflect what works best for you.
Finally, consider the quality of your peers at each university. Public colleges are always ranked far lower than private ones, often on criteria not directly applicable to the undergraduate experience. Look at the details and make your own decisions.
Always consider value. If you get a free ride at a lower ranked college vs an expensive OOS or private, youâll need to decide what works best for you and your family.