<p>Plus, I don't think that stat is MBAs from Wisconsin, but all degrees from WI. The current CEO of Goldman got an AB and JD from Harvard, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. Also, many times when someone went to a lesser known/respected college they supplement it with a top graduate degree.</p>
<p>My son is seriously getting over the prestige-thing. He has been extremely dissatisfied with the education he received as a freshman at an Ivy. He is going to transfer. He has decided that outside of a few northeastern states, the prestige-thing matters very little. He has applied to some transfer schools that he hopes will be better fits for him, but is also strongly considering two large state universities. He felt that his particular Ivy is a degree factory and not anywhere near worth the price of attending. He couldn't get out of there soon enough. He has applied to another Ivy which he feels might provide a better education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
slipper, can you explain all the Wisconsin MBAs in top spots in the corporate world to me? I mean they didn't have access to any opportunities, right? I mean, they went to Wisconsin! HA! What a joke! What losers, right? They definitely don't care about success; isn't that true?
.....
Then why is it that there are more Wisconsin MBAs among Fortune 500 Company CEOs than there are HBS MBAs? hmm...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't explain it. And neither can you. Because, as said by others here, you are factually incorrect. Please check your facts before you make statements like that.</p>
<p>This is the link that you are referring to.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0145.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0145.asp</a></p>
<p>Notice that, #1, the article is not talking about MBA's. It's talking about * undergrads *. Secondly, the study doesn't find that Wisconsin beats Harvard - rather it * ties * Harvard. Considering the fact that Wisconsin has about 4.5 times the number of undergrads that Harvard does, I think the study actually speaks to the tremendous strength of Harvard. Hence, your invocation of the CEO study doesn't strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it. </p>
<p>And, more importantly, as stated by others here, Harvard grads often times don't want to go into general management, preferring instead much more lucrative and powerful work in investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, consulting, or the like. The truth of the matter is, being a Fortune 500 CEO doesn't pay that well, relative to what you can make in other fields (especially banking). Leaving aside the special cases of CEO's who also founded their own companies (i.e Michael Dell or Larry Ellison), and are thus more properly classified as entrepreneurs than CEO's, Fortune 500 CEO's, frankly, don't make that much money, relative to what the top financiers of the world make. There are (obviously) 500 CEO's of the Fortune 500. I would estimate that they make, on average, maybe $3-5 million a year (obviously some make much more, but others make less. I am quite certain that the top 500 financiers in the world make more than that. </p>
<p>As a case in point, the #251 Fortune 500 company is Xcel Energy. The CEO is making only $1 million this year. There are a LOT of bankers making more than that. {Now, granted, he's probably getting stock options and other forms of compensation, but many bankers also receive equity-based compensation.}</p>
<p><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=XEL%5B/url%5D">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=XEL</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you even realize that guys at the top of Goldman Sachs went to a small LAC ranked in the 30s (Trinity College)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I think your use of GS, again, weakens your argument, because, as stated above, the CEO of GS went to Harvard for both undergrad and grad. The previous CEO, who is now Sec of the Treasury, went to HBS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. For top students, there is MUCH less competition, and you will likely be at the top.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's a converse story to that - the sociological story. Man is a social animal and tends to copy what he sees around him. When you are in an environment where lots of other people are studying hard and accomplishing impressive achievements, you tend to also want to work hard and accomplish achievements. But when you're in an environment where plenty of people are lazy and are not particularly serious about their studies and just want to party and drink all the time, then you also tend to become lazy and just want to party all the time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Its cheaper for these same top students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This depends on your financial circumstances. What I have found is that the top private schools tend to be extremely aggressive when it comes to financial aid - more aggressive than the state schools usually are. For example, I know 2 guys who got into their state school and also into Harvard.. and found out that Harvard would actually be *cheaper * once financial aid was factored in. Basically, the state school wanted them to take out loans, whereas Harvard offered them full grants. I will always remember one of them mordantly joking that he had always dreamed of going to his state school, but he couldn't afford it, so now he has "no choice" but to go to Harvard.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Thats true, but you forget the other side of the story as well. What about those that can't thrive in that environment and give up? Consider this, for SAT scores, some people are naturally smarter and can get a better score than another person who takes prep classes, does large amounts of practice tests and such that the person who sees him or herself still doing worse than someone who doesn't even try and gets 2250 as many Ivy-league kids are capable of may give up and feel worse about themselves (I know a few that have fell victim to this).</p></li>
<li><p>You've pointed this out in an earlier post of mine, and I'd again like to point out that Harvard guarentees to meet demonstrated need, as do all ivies. Lets use a comparable school, ie Northwestern as an example. Now, if you are an average kid for that type of school that is top 5%, or maybe even valedictorian, has a few awards in ECs, has an ACT of 31 or SAT of 2050-2100, you wont get a huge merit scholarship, and thus it will get expensive. Now, if you go to a state school, that person is likely to be in AT LEAST the 90th percentile, with a bit of variance depending on the state school, and will get a huge scholarship to it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It used to be that college was an extra ammenity that is used for exploring more in a particular field. But now, in todays society, going to college is now seen as a must, and our society is now evolving into where getting a masters also is a must. So why not save money, and get into a kick ass grad school where it will start to matter more (unless of course you plan on one of the aforementioned careers where you have to go to an ivy)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Thats true, but you forget the other side of the story as well. What about those that can't thrive in that environment and give up? Consider this, for SAT scores, some people are naturally smarter and can get a better score than another person who takes prep classes, does large amounts of practice tests and such that the person who sees him or herself still doing worse than someone who doesn't even try and gets 2250 as many Ivy-league kids are capable of may give up and feel worse about themselves (I know a few that have fell victim to this).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I didn't 'forget' about any other sides of the story. I just chose not to write about it.</p>
<p>But if you want to get into this subject deeply, I would say that it's even more complicated than what you (or I) have stated. You then have to factor in the notions of grade inflation and student support. Let's face it. The Ivies tend to offer more support and will also inflate their grades, relative to state schools, such that it is arguably * easier * to flunk out of a state schoo than to flunk out of an Ivy. At Harvard, in particular, it's almost impossible to flunk out. You may not get top grades, but as long as as you put in the bare minimum of effort, you will graduate. However, many state schools present the very real chance of actually flunking out. </p>
<p>Furthermore, many state schools tend to have the de-facto attitude that if you're having problems, that's too bad for you. Support services are often times few and far between. At the Ivies, on the other hand, support tends to be more available. </p>
<p>The upshot is that it's entirely unclear to me, when you weigh all of the factors, whether state schools are really "easier" than the Ivies in the aggregate. I can agree that for some people, the state schools will be easier. But I would argue that for other people, it will actually be the Ivies that will be easier. Hence, on the aggregate, it's not clear what the overall effect is. Some people will actually * do worse * at a state school than at an Ivy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. You've pointed this out in an earlier post of mine, and I'd again like to point out that Harvard guarentees to meet demonstrated need, as do all ivies. Lets use a comparable school, ie Northwestern as an example. Now, if you are an average kid for that type of school that is top 5%, or maybe even valedictorian, has a few awards in ECs, has an ACT of 31 or SAT of 2050-2100, you wont get a huge merit scholarship, and thus it will get expensive. Now, if you go to a state school, that person is likely to be in AT LEAST the 90th percentile, with a bit of variance depending on the state school, and will get a huge scholarship to it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, again, this depends on your financial state. If you're poor, you will most likely get a full financial aid package from NW, such that it may actually be cheaper to attend NW over the state school, even if the state school gives you a merit package. </p>
<p>Now, I agree that NW doesn't * guarantee * that you will get a full aid package if you're poor. But you probably will. But of course the best thing to do is apply and get in, and then see what sort of aid they give you. </p>
<p>Or,take my brother, for instance. He was a star in high school. He could have gone to a state school, but he would have had to pay. On the other hand, Caltech offered him a * full merit ride + stipend . So his choice was to either pay to go to a state school, or go to Caltech * and get paid. Be honest, what would you have done? </p>
<p>But the point is, we cannot categorically say that state schools are always more desirable because of the cost. Instead, they are more desirable * for some people *, namely those people who are in the middle class (but not the rich, as the rich don't care about the cost difference), and who aren't good enough to get a full merit ride from a top private school like Caltech. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and our society is now evolving into where getting a masters also is a must. So why not save money, and get into a kick ass grad school where it will start to matter more (unless of course you plan on one of the aforementioned careers where you have to go to an ivy)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'm not sure that getting a master's degree is really becoming a must. Keep in mind that only 27% of all Americans age 25 and up even have a bachelor's degree, and obviously less than that are going to have a master's. </p>
<p>Plenty of people enjoy excellent careers with just a bachelor's degree. George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Lyndon Johnson - all of these guys were highly successful politicians who had just bachelor's degrees. Or, you can take a look at some of the successful youths of today. Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook), Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim (founders of YouTube) - none of these guys have master's degrees. </p>
<p>But putting that aside, let's consider your suggestion anyway - that you should just save money for that 'kickass' grad school. What your suggestion presumes is that you actually will get into that kickass grad school. What if you don't? Let's face it. If you get less than a 3.0 in undergrad, you're not going to get into a kickass grad school. There are PLENTY of undergrads who end up with less than a 3.0. If you go to Harvard but don't do well, ok, you probably won't get into a good grad school, hey, at least you have a Harvard degree. Compare that to what happens if you go to a no-name state school and don't do well.</p>
<p>yeah, you've made some good points, but I'd like to say something about the last part. What I said is that our society is EVOLVING into one where a masters will soon feel mandatory. For a lot of careers, ie BME, because there are so many people getting a bachelors these days, you have to do something else to seperate yourself from the pack, which is why a masters is becoming more prevalent. Others may soon catch on, and thus I think people will soon (relatively speaking of course) treat getting a masters the same as going to college because then everyone will be doing it.</p>
<p>And about the other parts, here is my final conclusion: if you are set on going to a graduate program, are a middle of the pack student, middle class, etc., then you should really know yourself and your abilities before deciding on a college. If you go to a top private, but cannot make the grades due to the stiff comeptition, then you will have missed your ultimate goal. But, if you take a risk going to a state school, knowing that if you mess up here, your degree cant carry you as far, you could wind up saving money, and could end up at a very good school for grad school, and or finish at the top of your class, which looks good as well. Going to a state school is essentially the gamble, because if you mess up, then you're screwed, but it could wind up being the easier, and more fun way to the same end. But really, you have to know your limits. You have to know how you feel when people are better than you without trying, etc. because I for one know that I would collapse under that, but many average kids at ivies and stuff are still successful, so thats where your judgment comes in.</p>
<p>HTH</p>
<p>Um, I have the opportunity to get into i-banking, and I'm not going to take it. Why? I-bankers are losers. They make lots of money, but they are souless losers who are stuck on a hedonic treadmill that doesn't stop untill they finally die, at which point they will realize they wasted most of their life. Many of the Ivy, fast track career-orineted folks lack basic human qualities that are easy to take for granted: a sense of humor, genuine friendships, personality, enriching life experiences. </p>
<p>This is NOT to say that all those at prestigous schools fit these characteristics, or that there is no value to attending a prestigous school if you are not a money grubbing whore. I transfered out of a lower tier state school to go to a prestigous university. I, like many others at top schools, want to actually learn stuff, make some sort of contributiobn to the world, as oppossed to simply profiting off the buying and selling of others. I know plenty of kids at IVYs who want to work for NGO's in Africa-are they less "successful"? In monetary terms, maybe. But as human beings, they tend to be cooler and more likeable.</p>
<p>BTW, I still care about money. But any economics-minded folk here should take into consideration that your wage represents the opportunity cost of lesiure. You maximize utility at your marginal rate of substitution between the two. </p>
<p>A company like Fidelity is much more humane than Goldman Sachs, and has a much better corporate culture. The people who work at Fidelity can actually spend time w/their family, while making more than decent incomes.</p>
<p>Lastly, since when did going to Harvard provide even a %1 chance of being a hedge fund maven?!? How many people on earth can hold that sort of position? My guess: most of the grinds on this site need to justify not having fun and never getting laid by pointing out the 10 guys on wall street who became zillionaires from HBS.</p>
<p>R. Putnam Coes - Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Hedge Fund Partners is a Trinity College graduate.</p>
<p>Peter S. Kraus either is or was head of Goldman Sachs Investment Management division. He graduated from Trinity College in 1974.</p>
<p>Mitchell M. Merin - President and Chief Operating Officer, Asset Management Morgan Stanley. He graduated from Trinity College in 1975.</p>
<p>Just a few notable Trinity alums who weren't buried at the bottom in the world of economics simply because their undergraduate degrees weren't glazed with the "holy and necessary" Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford ink.</p>
<p>Yes but look at the full management of these companies. An overwhelming number of them come from the top 10-15 schools and LACs.</p>
<p>Prestige can help i guess.</p>
<p>Prestige matters because, as previously stated, it opens more doors. Let's face it, if a person is going into an interview and attended, let's say, Casnius University or something and his "oponent" attended Harvard, there is a 99.9% chance that the person from Harvard will get it. The interviewe from Casnius MAY have a chance if he has done extremely well, has many extracurriculars under his belt and has done internships or held jobs pretaining to the job he is trying to obtain by getting interviewed. Even in this instance, he had better hoped that the graduate from Harvard doesn't have anything under his belt, because then he will most likely not get hired.</p>
<p>No, I am not saying that this happens EVERYTIME, just a majority of the time.</p>
<p>Also, bragging rights do come into play. As was also stated earlier, most people over the age of 25 don't even have a bachelors degree. This correlates to the fact that most people do not go to college, or at least don't graduate from college. Thus, people who graduate from college are in a class all by themselves. So, imagine being in this elite group and as an added bonus you are going to a prestigious university. That puts the icing on the cake. </p>
<p>Prestigious Universities can simply open more doors for you in the long run.</p>
<p>Also, don't just think of Prestigious as the Ivies. There are other prestigious universities out there!</p>
<p>^Wow. So far the last post in the threads I viewed today have said everything I failed to say. <em>weird</em></p>
<p>I didn't read most of this thread:
Prestige matters in inflating your ego -- which is not a bad thing -- and making connection. As they say, birds of the same feather flock together.
Moreover, We live a capitalist driven society...think about it!...the capitalist class always requires its areas of congregation. So, as we live in such a structured society, a "top" school can help out in many ways. They may say that everyone has a chance to succeed, financially speaking, in American society; yet, we know that is just another cliche.
If you go to the prestigious university, that doesn't mean that your guaranteed success as is the same with the opposite. The greatest changers this era has seen rise from the bottom...but, then again, we're not all going to be those "great changers". It's all what you make of it. I left Yale, Princeton, MIT, Duke, HPME, and Cambridge to attend a BA/MD program with Rutgers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
R. Putnam Coes - Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Hedge Fund Partners is a Trinity College graduate.</p>
<p>Peter S. Kraus either is or was head of Goldman Sachs Investment Management division. He graduated from Trinity College in 1974.</p>
<p>Mitchell M. Merin - President and Chief Operating Officer, Asset Management Morgan Stanley. He graduated from Trinity College in 1975.</p>
<p>Just a few notable Trinity alums who weren't buried at the bottom in the world of economics simply because their undergraduate degrees weren't glazed with the "holy and necessary" Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford ink.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I don't know what exactly you're trying to prove here. Trinity College is a highly respected college. All you seem to be doing is further reinforcing the notion that you need to go to a strong college to achieve success. </p>
<p>Secondly, I doubt that anybody has ever said, or even meant, that you "need" to graduate HYPS. You don't "need" anything to succeed. Some of the richest men in the world never even graduated from college at all. </p>
<p>Rather, it's all about statistics. Working out, eating right and not smoking improves your odds of good health. Does it guarantee it? Of course not. I know a girl who worked out every day, ate as healthy a diet as anybody, and never smoked - and died at age 26 anyway. I also know a guy who smoked heavily, never exercised, and still lived to be over 90, and died not from smoking-related disease, but in a car accident. So does that mean that I should now quit exercise and take up smoking?</p>
<p>EVERYONE knows that prestige matters, but in the end there is not as much social stigma to deny it these days.</p>
<p>Don’t kid yourselves. The majority of people that graduate from better schools get better jobs. Go research ANY firm or high paying association and you will find it’s true. The few that graduated from random schools in the top positions are mostly those with connections or who worked hard and were top in that class. Best jobs are limited and aren’t for everyone.</p>
<p>Honestly, lol don’t kid yourselves and come to this site to make you feel better. Again, I said MOST, not all so no complaints about my post. It’s how the world works anyways. Get used to the reality.</p>
<p>nice necro</p>
<p>Please… I go to a more well-known and “prestigious” school than 95% of the successful fathers at the country club I work at. And I’m the one serving them. Granted, I’m still in college, but the point is made.</p>
<p>A prestigious university does not guarantee you a high-paying job, nor does a degree from a lesser-known university bar you from success.</p>
<p>Huge investment banks and such are flooded with Ivy League grads not primarily because of what their degrees say, but because of their intelligence and drive.</p>