<p>Because top colleges are top colleges for a reason.</p>
<p>agreed and there are many, many colleges that deserve to be on L Pope's list of Colleges that Change lives.</p>
<p>as for employment opportunities it seems to me that employers are just as interested in ethics with all the wallstreet scandals that have come to light and cost trillions of dollars to investors and corporations alike. The last thing they want or need is an executive who is ethics challenged signing off on financial statements that are bogus, regardless of where they went to school.</p>
<p>We live in a hyper competitive society which seems to get worse as every year passes. Healthy competition can be a driver to success. But unhealthy competition can be a driver to destructive behavior and worse. </p>
<p>And who wants to sit in a room full of people who are self obsessed about where they are going to college or where their kids are going to college?</p>
<p>also, a quick point on 'top': I alluded to it earlier in making a reference to 'top 10/30', and that was pointing to the controversial US News ranking, which has a bit of a recursive element to it: if you are top 10-20-30 college, you have prestige or desirability, and one of ways colleges earn such top spots is through low acceptance rate (high rejection rate), which is supposed add to the 'topness'. Also, one of the elements USNews uses is Peer Assessment, which is itself a beauty/prestige contest. </p>
<p>the higher the us news rank, the higher the prestige; the higher the prestige, the higher the US News rank.</p>
<p>The Way Forward On College Rankings </p>
<p>Remarks delivered to the Annapolis Group
June 20, 2007</p>
<p>Douglas C. Bennett
President, Earlham College</p>
<p>Questions about the U.S. News and World Report rankings of colleges and universities and about our relationship to those rankings are a sideshow to the serious issues that should steadily concern us about higher education today. The most serious issues are access and quality and the relationship between those two: how do we provide access to post-secondary education for all Americans, and how do we assure that this education is of high quality? The rankings are worth our attention only insofar as they bear on these questions, and they do bear on these questions in many ways, distracting us from the real, hard work needed to improve access and distorting understandings of quality. Let us all keep access and quality in our minds as we discuss the rankings.</p>
<p>Roger Ebert, who only graduated from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is far smarter and articulate than the current president who went to Yale, or even Gene Siskel, who went to Yale also.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My father has his BA from Brown and his MBA from Wharton. He's had troubule finding jobs and is now (happily!) self employed. My step-mother has her BA from Brown and her MFA from Stanford. Unhappily unemployed. Most of you are delusional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exceptions don't make the rule. I wonder how many of your father's classmates at Wharton continually had trouble finding jobs?</p>
<p>I didn't say he continually had trouble finding jobs, he was gainfully employed at Fortune 500 company for over 20 years until his division was entirely eliminated, at which point they tried to find jobs for him for a few more years but eventually had to let him go. I was merely refuting the ludicrous assertions that Ivy degrees make you "set for life".</p>
<p>From Post #31:
People are obsessed with top universities, because</p>
<p>Prestige/Exclusiveness -- The name on your degree opens many doors when you graduate. Additionally, you compete and form relationships with some of the smartest students in the world and hobnob with individuals from influential families -- especially when entering the real world where its not only what you know but who you know. The networking opportunities at top schools are unparalleled.</p>
<p>From Post #53:
^^You can also say that people who did <em>not</em> end up at a top school have an inferiority complex and are thus putting down others who <em>did</em> make it and saying that a top school or Ivy education doesn't do much more than a regular state school education (FYI, I'm exaggerating a little). Anyhow, it can go both ways.</p>
<p>Majayiduke, I'd agree with you, but I think you need to look beneath the surface a little. WHY are some people obsessed with hanging with the tip top of the social and economic elite? Why are some people obsessed with going to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton when it's clear that Cornell or Georgetown, or Pomona would also give them enormous advantages in life? In other words, I think the key question is why are some people so determined to work twice as hard (on grades, SATs, and extracurriculars) to get into a college that is just slightly more prestigious? You see it all the time on collegeconfidential...that urge to get the gold medal rather than being ok with the silver medal (figuratively speaking). There was even one post about a guy who was going to Princeton who felt like a loser because he wasn't going to Harvard or Yale. I think such obsession must, in many cases, be linked with financial, physical, intellectual, and social insecurities.</p>
<p>And ixjunixi, I'm not "putting down" people who want to go to great colleges...I'm trying to shed light on their motivation. You're probably right, that some people's insecurities manifest themselves by the student not feeling confident enough or comfortable at an elite school. But that doesn't mean that insecurity isn't a motivator at top schools, it just means the insecurity manifests itself differently in different people. I felt compelled to go to the very best colleges I could get into (and I ended up at places like BC, U of Toronto, and U of St. Andrews), and I'm certain that in my case, social and intellectual insecuritites were at the root of it.</p>
<p>Academic insecurity is fed by society because our society is credentialist in the extreme. I can tell you that in the professional world that mistake is made over and over and over. All too often people pick the candidate with the most prestigious degree instead of the candidate who is the best person for the job. I am not saying that looking at the the Ivy League as nerds who are to be avoided at all cost when hiring, but I am saying that they are not apriori the best candidate all the time. I would suggest that people look at the schools in a more complete manner, such as whether the students who come from there are committed to serving their communities or are mere greedmeisters. </p>
<p>I long ago got over the insecurity of not going to a top named school for my undergraduate education and instead focus upon what my school did for me as a person, and I am not just talking about job opportunities (which were plenty.) I focus instead on how it changed my life for the better and made me think more clearly and with deeper analysis. Not what to think, but how to think. And I keep that in the context of how it was the best school for me at that time/phase of my life. I would not trade those years for a million dollars. Would I have gone to Princeton if I had been admitted? (I did not apply). Yes, without so much as a blink of an eyelash. I commend anyone who goes there. </p>
<p>I truly wish that guidance counselors, parents, teachers, admissions officers and students could get together and through a careful discussion and analysis of the applicants interests, character, qualities, skills, preferences, and all the factors that should go into selecting a college, that everyone could come to a consensus and find the perfect school for that person. It doesnt work that way. Its much more chaotic and serendipitous.</p>
<p>We all ponder the "What ifs?" of life, including the what if I had been admitted at (name your favorite schools?) Life changing events. And its also life changing to be denied or deferred. We may never know the reasons in full or really how arbitrary it was. But like pruning trees in your yard to assist their future growth you must prune the past from your life and stop dwelling on the things that did not happen. Or dreaming about what will never be, at least for now. </p>
<p>I told my kid to not slam doors and lock windows and to leave open the possibility of going to "that school" for graduate or professional school when it matters much more than your undergraduate alma mater.</p>
<p>While the undergrad school might not have a huge impact on your career, especially if you go to grad school, I think the undergrad school DOES put its permanent stamp on you in many subtle ways, including how you talk, think, and dress. You start your undergrad years very impressionable, but by the time you hit grad school you're probably already "formed."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Majayiduke, I'd agree with you, but I think you need to look beneath the surface a little. WHY are some people obsessed with hanging with the tip top of the social and economic elite?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tourguide446,</p>
<p>Because this is a society where you're not judged solely on your character or abilities.</p>
<p>You are judged on who your family is; how you talk; what you wear; who your friends are; and yes which schools you attended. And that is just the TIP of the iceberg.</p>
<p>People are insecure beings, in constant need of validation (e.g. they want to be seen as the smartest, the coolest, or the prettiest) </p>
<p>Going to a "top-tier" school is merely one way of separating themselves from the common man -- one way to appear unique, to be special. </p>
<p>Nothing soothes insecurity more than hearing someone say "Oh you must be smart!" based solely of telling them where you attend.</p>
<p>We live in a world where perception is reality.</p>
<p>majay, great statement, and this thread should end with it as the final and best word. Patton's opening speech came to mind in this context and I 'll share it here.</p>
<p>Patton</a> Opening Speech</p>
<p>...a cut from it ....</p>
<p>When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.</p>
<p>Since he spoke those words in '44, America did not exactly win every war since then. Yes, we had Grenada. And, didn't we have a mission that was accomplished?</p>
<p>Maybe THIS is a pretty good last word on this thread? On further thought, it might tend to show the bankruptcy of the win - win- top - top - top ethos.</p>
<p>After awhile the Ivy on the resume becomes meaningless. After the first job or so prospective employers want to see what you've done WITH your Ivy pedigree. If you haven't achieved, you may even look lazy or like an underachiever. As far as people here on CC being obsessed, it just looks that way because CC is a forum for basically how to get into places that are extremely selective. Bad metaphor but its like asking why people on Match. com are interested in dating. I know alot of students who wouldn't bother figuring out the hooks and angles to get into a top school (by going on CC) because they're going to fill out a state school app. and hope for the best. They don't need CC for that as much.</p>