I may have made this comment before on this and while I agree that college reputation is not that important for high tech, very few people would admit that they used college ranking if they did in fact prioritize it higher. I know it’s an anonymous survey but in silicon valley you’re biased against using reputation (outside of VC funding), so that bias probably came up in this survey. Also I think recruiters may use reputation more than hiring managers. Once a hiring mgr gets a resume, they’re not going to care about the college.
“My spouse, a senior engineering manager, disagrees that college reputation ranks last on the list of evaluation criteria for engineering hires”
That would still be consistent with the results of the survey, there were probably a few that had reputation higher maybe even number one, but overall it was 8th.
“Bruni’s book, understandably, is highly selective in the use of examples in order to drive his point, which is, you don’t have to go to elite colleges in order to succeed. But, we all know that.”
I don’t think people know that, which is why he wrote the book and all the research that’s been cited on this thread. One of the goals of Bruni’s book is to reduce the stress around college admissions, especially around the selective schools, he takes on rankings, the need to get into the right pre-school, etc.
Since his goal is laudatory, I’m glad he has a place like CNN for him to discuss his opinions.
I have mixed feelings here. I still receive lots of comments (and sometimes open jealousy) about my elite college (and associated academic qualifications) nearly 30 years later from people in status-oriented professions (particularly law, consulting and finance, but sometimes tech as well). And I’m sure I get offered jobs more frequently as a result.
On the other hand, being able to stand out at a state school can provide plenty of opportunities too. Yes those famous graduate scholarships often go to students from elite colleges. But most people don’t realize that the school with the most Churchill scholarship recipients in the last four years (one per year out of 15 awarded) is the University of Utah. They are very good at picking a few top science students as sophomores and grooming them to compete for this particular scholarship two years later. And I suspect those scholarships are going to open more career-related doors than being a generic HYPSM student.
Yes, size can make a difference. However, size works both ways. Larger size could also mean classes are prioritized in a way that students won’t get those classes until their senior year, and/or may have to accept rationing (take this or that, but not both, etc.).
No, people do know, that is, “you don’t have to go to elite colleges in order to succeed.” People still seek after them, however, for a variety of reasons that aren’t always about financial “success.” This is why Bruni’s book, which was meant as an antidote to the admissions mania, fell on deaf ears for the most part, and that phenomenon will not change. Why? People are naturally drawn to prestige, elitism and brand. Colleges are no different than the brand of handbags or cars in this regard. A Honda can take you from point A to B, but if accessibility is allowed, everyone wants to get from A to B in their choices of luxury cars. These Varsity Blues parents didn’t need to scheme their way to send their kids into USC, UCLA, Yale and Stanford in order to secure their children’s future financial “success.” It was for their own ego, trophy.
True, but if all those people were asked why they preferred the luxury car many could could come up with long lists of reasons aside from simply “the brand”. One of my earliest cars was a Toyota Camry - a good car. Got me from A to B and was reliable and comfortable. So why do I prefer my S class? Because, for the money I feel comfortable spending on car, it’s my best choice. And, yes, I think I could articulate why it is a “better car” from performance, comfort, safety features, aesthetics, and durability.
BTW, a bus can get you from point A to B, but if accessibility to a Honda is allowed, everyone would want to get from A to B in their Honda. Until, that is, accessibility to a luxury car is available.
Well if you’ve got the marks the vast majority will pick the “top schools” so for most if they don’t attend it will be due to selectivity regardless of school. Tuition is regulated by the government and will all be in the same general ballpark. The cost of living away from home for those not close enough to commute could be a factor, but I think most students aiming for engineering or comp sci in our province would move heaven and earth to be able to attend U of T or Waterloo if they were accepted. Most students also don’t go out of province so would not be targeting UBC or McGill, and “fit” isn’t really a big consideration when picking schools here. For top students it’s more about school/program reputation. I however am a strong believer in fit and this is part of the issue we are having when researching schools for DS21. He is considering majoring in engineering or cs and may or may not have the marks for the “top schools” (though he is more than capable of doing so). If he doesn’t have the marks it’s obviously not an issue but even if he were to I don’t think those schools would be a good fit for him. There are a others that I think would fit him better but their reputations are not at the same level for those majors. Due to the size of the programs at U of T and Waterloo they graduate a large number of students in those disciplines, the majority of whom are relatively local. It creates a big disadvantage for those students not attending those specific programs as many employers tend to recruit exclusively from those schools using their admissions selectivity as a proxy for picking the best employees. It makes for a difficult choice to make between prestige and fit.
On the other hand, it could be that DS21 wouldn’t be a good fit for those companies either.
A larger number of students with rare recognitions does not mean the college must be primarily responsible for creating that recognition. I expect the recognition usually has more to do with the students. For example, the following colleges had the most unsponsored national merit scholars in a recent year. These same colleges get the most unsponsored NMS every year. Does this mean the that these colleges are good at creating national merit scholars? Or does it mean that they are selective colleges whose admission criteria is correlated with the criteria NMS uses in their selection?
Harvard (195)
Stanford (157)
MIT (147)
Berkeley (124)
Yale (124)
The linked article in the post above lists the following order in number of awards. Note the similarity in the two lists. 4 of the top 5 colleges with the most national merit scholars also appear in the top 5 for the most GRFP awards. Does this primarily occur because the listed colleges are good at creating award winners? Or does this primarily occur because they are selective colleges whose admission criteria is correlated with the criteria GRFP uses in their selection?
Berkeley
MIT
Cornell
Stanford
Harvard
Princeton
UW
UCLA
From an individual student’s perspective, such lists might give some rough information about having a critical mass of stellar students, but that same information could be derived more accurately and more easily from numerous other sources. It gives little information about the chance of a particular student receiving such a recognition and whether than chance would differ between attending a frequent award winner (Berkeley/MIT/Cornell) or a smaller school, like Caltech, that rarely appears towards the top of such awards lists.
I agree (should have used “True, and…” instead of "True, but…).
I thinks it’s just common sense that where you go to school matters - for multiple reasons. And it matters to all, not just to investment types and lawyers (commonly herd here on CC ).
Not sure why some feel that it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter why go at all? Or, why not go to your absolutely lowest cost option? What your “best school” is depends on so many factors, but parents should make every effort to help guide their kids to the “best school” they can fit (based on ability to get in, $$, etc).
Several years down the road, you want to be able to say: “Yep, that was a great decision”
My DS1 attends our in-state flagship university. My DS2 attends Princeton. Both are pre-meds. If both successfully follow through on their professional goals without a hitch, then they’ll likely enjoy a similar ROI. So, why attend Princeton rather than the in-state?
Because there’s a world of difference in their experiences which are so vastly discrepant in so many areas of their lives on their respective campuses that I don’t care to elaborate here.
That is more size of department relative to the number of interest students. Even elite colleges have had to ration courses (e.g. CS at Swarthmore) or majors (e.g. CS at CMU).
I think that people are confusing two different issues. It definitely matters to a kid which colleges they attend. To succeed they should attend a college in which they will succeed and thrive. It does not really matter whether the college is ranked #7 or #45 on USNews, Niche, or Times.
One of the things that I find amusing on CC and elsewhere is that people continue to trust anecdotes and personal experience over analysis of large amount of actual data. So somebody will post the results of extensive surveys and analyses of large data sets, etc, and somebody else will then post “I think that you’re wrong, because my brother-in-law had a different personal experience”.
Re: cars and prestige. There are people who prefer to go from point A to Point B by a luxury car even when it is quicker to walk…
