<p>"Little to no effect" is not the same as "to effect for some" or "to no effect for many"
-Because it may have a larger than a "Little" effect on the mentioned group of students.</p>
<p>Thank you- now I recall that the writer was comparing the US admissions system to the Canadian one. We must be talking about the same article. </p>
<hr>
<p>The reason why Americans can dispute the advantages of attending or not attending schools which are commonly believed to be leaders is that the American higher education system (with all varieties of institutions- from research universities to liberal arts colleges) is unparallelled in the world.
Most Europeanans and especially Asians (who study in their countries/regions) could not carry the same kind of debate in their countries because very often Amelican-league education is accessible only in what they would believe to be their elite institutions.</p>
<p>I'm from the midwest and I'd strongly consider WashU over Brown. (I'm not sure I'm applying to either)</p>
<p>Also, notice how Newsweek and Time are publishing college related material to compete with U.S. News? "Who Needs Harvard?" is a pretty appealing title and will help sell magazines.</p>
<p>"Also, notice how Newsweek and Time are publishing college related material to compete with U.S. News? "Who Needs Harvard?" is a pretty appealing title and will help sell magazines."</p>
<p>-Ding, ding, ding, ding! Think about it; the Time mag. comes out on the 21st.... 3 days after U.S. News....</p>
<p>The problem with trying to prove any of these conjectures is that there are soooo many confounding variables which makes it so that one will never REALLY know these kinds of things... which is good, since the uncertainty generates very healthy discussions.</p>
<p>I think back to that Krueger study and wonder just how much our talk of the impact that a school has on one's career is justified. He asserted that kids who got into selective and non-selective schools (I don't mean... say... Harvard and a little less selective school like NYU... I mean the discrepancy between Harvard and.... the University of Montana -just used this example 'cause Montana is world-famous for its population density) earned just as much later in life regardless of what school they chose to attend. So, that being the case, how much is a Harvard/Yale/Caltech/MIT/Columbia/Princeton/Chicago/Brown/Northwestern difference REALLY going to make?!?!?!</p>
<p>I personally don't think it will make any difference. The true distinction between all of these schools is that they will all certainly provide different experiences during your four years of college. Some will have the kind of environment which you could only hope to be allowed to stay in for the rest of your life, while others will have the kind of environment that your whole family envys... except you. </p>
<p>My point is only that I think discussions about different colleges should really center on the actual college experience... what the college does for you later in life, I'm convinced, is just about the same at any of the schools we've been discussing.</p>
<p>oh my gosh, this really doesn't have anything to do with anything but i know the kid with his picture at the top of the article. he lives in espanola and i live about 30 minutes away and i doubt you guys really care...</p>
<p>In my opinion, your success in life depends much more on your own intelligence, perseverance and effort than on where you go to school. Yes, maybe you will have more access to, say, world class guests at Harvard than at WUSTL, but WUSTL is still an excellent school. Do you really think that going to a prestigious college and majoring in biology is going to make you THAT much more accomplished than majoring in bio at a less well-known school? You can learn almost the same thing everywhere, and you can acheive everywhere.</p>
<p>Here's the link to the New Yorker magazine article ("Getting In" by Malcolm Gladwell) which discusses the Krueger and Dale study re: the income bonus from selective schools:</p>
<p>If you're smart, aggressive, and take advantage of your opportunities, you're going to get a pretty darn good education at University of Montana. And by the same token, you can go to HYP et al., drink too much, spend weeks playing World of Warcraft, skip classes, and completely **** away an opportunity that many people would give an arm and a leg for. </p>
<p>Any school, regardless of its resources and reputation, is going to pay dividends that relate directly to how much effort you invest in your education. Even with the vaunted HYP Old Boy networks, those will help you out if you take the initiative to reach out to your fellow alumni. I'm always shocked at Harvard and Princeton to hear alumni insisting that the universities do more to help them with their careers, only to discover that they haven't even taken the time to explore the resources already available to them. No employer anywhere is going to seek you out and offer you a job simply because of where you went to school.</p>
<p>"Krueger says that there is one exception to this. Students from the very lowest economic strata do seem to benefit from going to an Ivy." </p>
<p>The Krueger study is implausible to me, and in any case badly needs replication on a different data set. But supposing it is correct, it shows that </p>
<p>1) people who APPLY TO and get into elite schools could fare about as well at less elite schools (in other words, people too lazy/too scared to apply to elite schools may still be at a disadvantage compared to elite school grads) </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>2) poor people who get into elite schools are better off at elite schools than at any other kind of school. </p>
<p>That's what the study shows, on its own terms. But I hope someone attempts to replicate the study soon, because I doubt that the elite school advantage is as small as Krueger's study concluded.</p>
<p>i dont doubt it... I think that the WSJ rankings say a lot about this. Harvard is ranked first... by far... yet I doubt that the Harvard degree adds that much more value to a person's resume than Princeton does. The discrepancy certainly comes from the fact that more people at Harvard are prob. aiming for the top professional schools that are included in the rankings than the kids at Princeton. Therefore, Harvard's advantage is merely due to its student body's behavior, not the actual education they got. I think that, for most schools, its success and character are derived from the kids they end up admitting. I think that any difference in the impact that a Harvard/Yale/MIT/Stanford/Chicago/CalTech education has on someone's career success, as opposed to some other school on the list, would prove to be statistically insignificant.</p>
<p>All the "nominees" are peeing in their pants over this story!</p>
<p>See this report, for example:</p>
<p>"We're pleased to be described as a 'New Ivy' in the recent Kaplan/Newsweek guide and for past recognition in the guide for our campus technology and our student placement efforts," Carnegie Mellon spokeswoman Teresa Thomas said."</p>
<p>durt: you might be very dismayed to know that some of harvard's professional schools are giving a trans option on app forms. !!! oh no trans+ people!!</p>