<p>I agree that any elite will be sufficient. I pretty much have always thought of Duke, Stanford, Amherst etc as defacto Ivies.</p>
<p>
I would say there are more than the 15 or so schools you mentioned before. At it's lowest common denominator, the Ivys are at the level of Cornell or better. And I would say there are quite a few schools at least at the level of Cornell. Which is why I mentioned that one would be able to find a comperable learning experience at the majority of schools that are members of COFHE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where I heard this was specifically for Harvard Business School graduates. According to the WSJ, "Many corporate recruiters love to hate Harvard Business School. While acknowledging its talented faculty and students, they complain about the arrogant culture, graduates' excessive salary demands, and their ambitions to be CEO tomorrow." ( <a href="http://www.careerjournal.com/reports...ecruiters.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.careerjournal.com/reports...ecruiters.html</a> )
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but keep in mind that the job of a business school is not really to please the recruiters. It's to please * the students *. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Let's be honest about what recruiters really want. They don't * just * want are highly talented graduates. No. What they * really * want are highly talented graduates who are willing to work for the low payest pay possible while not complaining when they are given undesirable locations and boring jobs. Heck, if it was up to them, they would be offering everybody minimum wage for shoddy jobs with no prospects for advancement. </p>
<p>I agree that recruiters complain incessantly about the penchant for HBS grads for arrogance and for high salary and job demands. But the reason why HBS grads are that way is because they * can be * be that way, and they know it. Specifically, they have the luxury of sitting back and demanding high salaries, because they know that somebody will give it to them. They can demand high-powered positions in the best locations that give them the best chance of becoming CEO because, again, they know that somebody will give it to them. In short, HBS grads are in a prime position of power, and they know it. </p>
<p>The proof of this pudding is in the eating. HBS grads consistently, year-after-year, get the highest average compensation packages of any B-school in the country. They get the best shots at the prime jobs, which in the last few years, would be private equity. 13% of the HBS class of 2006 went to private equity or LBO firms (which is basically just another form of private equity), which is the highest percentage of any school out there. </p>
<p>{Note, don't be fooled by the 10% of Kellogg grads going to private equity/venture-capital/other financial services category, as if you scroll down, you will see that most of that category seems to be taken up by that 'other' classification}.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hbs.edu/mba/recruiting/data/industry-career.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hbs.edu/mba/recruiting/data/industry-career.html</a>
<a href="http://mbacareers.wharton.upenn.edu/report/indus_2.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://mbacareers.wharton.upenn.edu/report/indus_2.cfm</a>
<a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/career_employer/employment/2006/industry_ft.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/career_employer/employment/2006/industry_ft.htm</a></p>
<p>But the point is this. B-schools are not out to do what recruiters 'prefer' them to do. Yes, it is true, recruiters probably dislike recruiting at HBS. But ** they keep coming back **. Look, if recruiters REALLY REALLY hated HBS, they wouldn't keep coming back. Yet, at the end of the day, * somebody * out there is offering HBS grads such high compensation packages. HBS grads are arrogant because, frankly, they have a reason to be arrogant. They know that they can get good offers, so they know they can drive a very hard bargain. That's obviously not good at all for the recruiters, but who cares? It's good for the STUDENTS. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is why, according toan article a few years back, recruiters by far preferred hiring Northwestern Business School Graduates over Harvard Business School graduates and propelled Northwestern to the number 1 business school for so many years in the Business Week rankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's why I think BW is a flawed ranking. Again, see above. The job of a business school is not to please the recruiters. After all, I'm sure that if all of your students accepted minimum wage jobs without complaint, that would please the recruiters immensely. But would that be a good thing for the school? I didn't think so. </p>
<p>The job of a business school is to get the best possible jobs for its students. Period. If the process happens to tick off the recruiters, as long as the recruiters keep coming back, it doesn't matter. </p>
<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. If Northwestern Kellogg was really such a desirable school, then why does it only manage to yield about 55% of its admits, whereas HBS yields over 90%? Hence, nearly half of all people who get admitted to Kellogg choose not to go, but less than 1 in 10 people who gets into HBS chooses not to go. Why is that, if Kellogg really is better than HBS? Similarly, while I can't prove this, I would strongly suspect that HBS beats Kellogg (and every other business school) in terms of cross-admits, which means that the majority of people who are admitted to both HBS and Kellogg will choose HBS. Or, indirectly speaking, that implies that there are far far more students at Kellogg who would rather be at HBS, but didn't get in, than there are students at HBS who would rather be at Kellogg, but didn't get in. Why is that, if Kellogg really is 'better' than HBS? </p>
<p>
[quote]
So on the note of Ivies helping you out of college, i have heard from 3 or so businessmen (my dad, a family friend, and my friend's dad) that they prefer to hire state school graduates because they are more down-to-earth and NOT to hire Ivy League graduates because from their experience, they often are very self-oriented and have a lofty "i can rule the world" mentality, and although this mentality can be good in a leader, it is often bad when not in a leadership role. just throwing it out there, i do not mean to insult anyone. this may be complete bull**** but i don't know. of course it is apparent that Ivies cultivate leaders from many presitgious graduate, so in no way do i have any disrespect for Ivy graduates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My response to this aligns with the post I made immediately above. Look, the fact is, most jobs out there, frankly, do not require somebody with leadership ability and initiative. They just need a wage slave who is willing to take orders and doesn't have ambition to move up. I'm not making a moral judgment, I'm just saying that that's the reality of the situation in many companies. I know of plenty of companies where talent and initiative were actually considered to be deeply threatening to upper management, because if you were highly talented and productive, your manager might fear that you will replace him, so the safe thing for your manager to do is to fire you so that he can preserve his job. So I agree that in these kinds of jobs, self-initiative and self-motivation would actually be considered to be strong minuses. Hence, Ivy grads would clearly be bad fits here.</p>
<p>But the REAL question is, what do YOU want to do as an individual. Do you want to be a follower, or do you want to be a leader? I think most Ivy grads want at least to have the CHANCE to be a leader. So they will tend to gravitate towards jobs that provide them those opportunities. Like investment banking. Like management consulting. Like private equity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm willing to accept that. What is interesting is that according to the study of Jerome Karabel in "The Chosen" (as reported in the previously linked New Yorker article <a href="http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10...dmissions.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10...dmissions.html</a> )and in William Bowen and Sarah Levin's book "Reclaiming the Game", "athletic ability, rather than falling under "extracurriculars," got a category all to itself, which explains why, even now, recruited athletes have an acceptance rate to the Ivies at well over twice the rate of other students, despite S.A.T. scores that are on average more than a hundred points lower."</p>
<p>So technically if one cannot tell the difference between Ivy athletes with lower GPAs and SATs over 100 points lower than other Ivy League students then technically one cannot tell the difference between the students at an Ivy League school and another school where students have slightly lower GPAs and SATs 100 points lower on average. Either 100 SAT points mean something or it doesn't. Is there any difference in the students who attend HYP and Cornell (about a 100 point difference)? If not, then one can make a similar claim that no difference exists in students who attend George Washington and Cornell (also about a hundred point difference).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have 2 responses to this, one specific, and one general.</p>
<p>My specific response is that I think there probably is little discernable detectable difference between Ivy athletes and Ivy non-athletes as long as we are careful what we mean by this. As has been said by somebody on this thread, an Ivy athlete has to spend plenty of time practicing his/her athletic discipline. So that person just doesn't have the time to go that extra mile to squeeze out those extra few points on the test or the paper that spells the difference between, say, an A and an A-. However, simply talking to such a person, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between that athlete and a non-athlete. After all, there isn't THAT much difference between somebody who has an 'A level' knowledge of the material and somebody who has only an 'A-minus level' knowledge. </p>
<p>My more general comment is that you seem to be quoting a lot from Karabel's 'The Chosen'. While I appreciate Karabel's work, you have to keep in mind that he only chose to focus on the Ivies, and specifically on HYP. However, the 'issues' that he highlights are not at all specific to HYP, but are common across the gamut of American higher education. You have to keep in mind that ** it's all relative **. </p>
<p>For example, I see that you have harped upon HYP's use of legacy admissions. Yet the fact is, LOTS of American colleges use legacy admissions, including many state schools. For example, the University of Michigan runs legacy admissions. So does the University of Virginia. So does the University of North Carolina. Texas A&M had it until just recently. The Ivies are therefore far from the only schools that utilize legacy admissions, yet Karabel makes it seem as if they are. So just like one could say that the Ivies have plenty of legacy kids who supposedly don't 'deserve' to be there, the same could be said for plenty of non-Ivy schools, including many public schools. In fact, one could actually argue that the legacy admissions at the public schools are perhaps MORE damaging on an absolute level, simply because the public schools are larger and therefore have more alumni (and thus more alumni children) with which to warp the admissions process. Yet Karabel never talks about that. </p>
<p>You also bring up the notion of athletics. Yet, again, the truth is, most non-Ivy schools ALSO provide admissions preference to athletes. In fact, if anything, athletic preference is FAR STRONGER at the public schools, especially those competing in Division 1-A. For example, NFL Pro-Bowl defensive end Dexter Manley was admitted to Oklahoma State and remained academically eligible for 4 years of college ball there despite years later revealing that he didn't even know how to read. Every few years, some NCAA scandal erupts where some school is revealed to have given unearned or too-easily-earned grades/credits to athletes to keep them eligible to play. The following is a link to the super-easy final exam given by Jim Harrick Jr. to basketball players at Georgia to keep them eligible to play, which ultimately got him fired. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. You mentioned a comparison between the academic ability of the students at Harvard vs. Cornell vs. George Washington, as it has to do with the athletes. Well, let me ask you this. Who do you think is more academically capable, on average - the Harvard basketball team, the Cornell basketball team, or the George Washington basketball team? The simple fact is, GW ALSO provides preference to athletes, and since it is in a stronger basketball conference (the Atlantic 10) than is the Ivy League, almost certainly provides stronger preference to basketball players. Yet, again, Karabel never talks about that. </p>
<p>So the point is, it's all relative. Yes, the Ivies are not entirely academically meritocratic. But, frankly, neither are a lot of other schools, including plenty of public schools. Plenty of public schools have appallingly bad athletic graduation rates. USC, for example, graduates only about half of its football players. UCLA, which is supposed to be a top public school, only graduates less than 60% of all its male athletes. UC-Berkeley, which is arguably the #1 public school in the country, graduates only 30-45% of its football players, and even less than that of its men's basketball players (and only about 50-60% of all its male athletes). The University of Virginia is a top public school, yet its football team only graduates about 50-60% of its players. {Note, don't try to blame it on athletes going pro early- as the NCAA GSR methodology corrects for this issue}. </p>
<p><a href="http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/grad_rate/2006/d1_school_grad_rate_data.html%5B/url%5D">http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/grad_rate/2006/d1_school_grad_rate_data.html</a>
<a href="http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/grad_rate/2006/d1_info.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/grad_rate/2006/d1_info.pdf</a></p>
<p>Finally, I can think of one shining historical example where the Ivies were, relatively speaking, MORE meritocratic than many public universities. That has to do with race, specifically with African-Americans. Let's face it. During most of the history of the US, no African-Americans were allowed into any of the flagship public universities of the South. It didn't matter how brilliant you were. If you were an African-American living before the 1960's, you were not going to get admitted into, say, the University of Mississippi. Period. You could get admitted into what we now call the historically black colleges, but it was hopeless for you to get admitted into one of the 'white' public schools. In contrast, you did have a chance of getting into one of the Ivies. Granted, it was a low chance. But it was still a chance. That's better than the public Southern flagship universities where you had NO chance. Think about this. W.E.B. Dubois could get admitted to Harvard, but couldn't have gotten admitted into ANY of the flagship public schools in the South. </p>
<p>Note, nobody is saying that the Ivies were perfectly fair when it came to race. Clearly they were not. But it's still a lot better than what happened in the South under slavery and then under Jim Crow. Hence, relatively speaking, the Ivies were MORE fair, or perhaps more accurately, less unfair.</p>
<p>Just to add another note, one of my friends I wrote about is a math TA at Brown...in his sophomore year... (I should also add that in high school he wasn't what you might call "brilliant" at math).</p>
<p>I am well aware that a lot of students were admitted at Ivies because of one special interest, and they couldn't possibly excel at everything else at the same time, or at the same level with the IPHOs, IMOs etc. </p>
<p>But</p>
<p>Top students should be the focus of elite schools. Weak students something to be ashamed of. I have been told it's vice versa. The really good students, with an interest level above the "hmm, i wonder what this crap is all about" level don't have a chance to prove they are better. In fact, trying to be better is seen as being arrogant. There is no competition, which is essential for progress and education.
During the courses the teacher just talks about what he has to talk about, stopping from time to time to answer stupid questions (like "why do you use niu for frequency, can't you just use f?". Then at the conference they only discuss the homework, and usually with a TA. Where is the challenge ? Staying up late to finish your homework isn't a challenge, it's just being mediocre, doing what everyone else does. All always heard "oh, there is great interaction between faculty and students in top schools". So where is it? </p>
<p>Interaction should mean discussions in class, challenging students with a difficult problem, and inviting whoever wants to show off to solve it in front the whole class. I have heard of no such thing nor at Brown, Princeton, Harvard, Northwestern or Columbia (where I currently know people)</p>
<p>This is why I'm raising an eye at all this "oh it's great there". I am sure it's a LOT better than anywhere else, but it's not perfect.</p>
<p>negru, it is so refreshing to see someone challenge the conventional wisdom. I hope people who have studied in top schools or have some relevant data will participate in this discusion and address your concerns. This is very timely.</p>
<p>An excerpt from an article written by an Ivy Leaguers perspective:</p>
<p>What's the Value of an Ivy Degree?
<a href="http://69.57.157.207/issues/2.7.00/ivies.html%5B/url%5D">http://69.57.157.207/issues/2.7.00/ivies.html</a></p>
<p>...“It's not the school that has the magic touch,” Krueger (of the Krueger and Dale study which demonstrated that if you were good enough to be admitted at an elite school, you would be economically successful in life even if you attended a non-elite school) told The Chronicle of Higher Education. “It's the students.” </p>
<p>Where you attend college does not determine how successful you will be. What determines how successful you will be is how talented and committed you are—the same things that get you into good colleges in the first place. </p>
<p>Proponents of the Ivy League will argue here that there are substantial benefits to an Ivy League education—having intelligent people around all the time, the headiness of the intellectual climate, the pride that comes with thinking (however ill-based the thought may be, we've certainly all entertained it) that we are among the very best. Yet, write Krueger and Dale, “An able student who attends a lower tier school can find able students to study with,” just like a student at an Ivy League school can always surround himself with dolts. And the same goes for one's academic endeavors or intellectual pride. In short, higher education is what you make of it...</p>
<p>...The basis for much statistical and rhetorical hand-wringing about the college admissions process is the sentiment that the people who get to go to Harvard will end up running the country, and that, therefore, we have a tangible stake, as a country with real faith in professing our own democratic ideals, in making sure that the decision about who gets to go to Harvard is as fair as possible. This is the line of thinking that has driven the rather nonsensical recent arguments about the viability of standardized testing in the admissions process (see TDR, 10/12/99). </p>
<p>What the Krueger and Dale study says, then, is that these considerations are not terribly important. A student's credentials may dazzle interviewers when he first enters the job market, but, soon after that, his competence matters much more. If a person who goes to Oklahoma State is as smart and talented and capable as someone who gets into Princeton, he'll end up doing just as well...</p>
<p>...More important than admission to an elite school are the values and academic discipline that qualify a student for admission in the first place. </p>
<p>The ultimate point of the Krueger and Dale study is that Dartmouth alumni are successful not because Dartmouth makes them talented, but because Dartmouth had the foresight to admit talented students. There's no inherent and unalienable value in a Dartmouth degree.</p>
<p>(but the author adds, in his opinion) What makes Dartmouth worthwhile is the substance of its educational experience and the knowledge it imparts. Not necessarily knowledge of annual rates of return, or other pragmatics, but the substantive stuff of which liberal education is made.</p>
<p>As an aside, it should be stated that since this was a conservative Dartmouth Review article, the author was also trying to point out, elsewhere in the article, that, "Krueger's and Dale's result, moreover, held for both blacks and whites, undermining the case for racial preferences in admissions. Talented people will, ultimately, succeed, no matter where they go to school or what color their skin is... The reasoning behind the assorted games in college admissions is that students, especially minorities, will suffer particularly acutely if they are denied access to elite schools. Krueger and Dale say, no, they won't."</p>
<p>In fact Krueger and Dale found the opposite:
From the previously cited New Yorker article, "The social logic of Ivy League admissions" ( <a href="http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html</a> )
"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>And from the previously cited Atlantic Monthly article, "Who Needs Harvard? ( <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20040902easterbrook.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20040902easterbrook.htm</a> )
"There is one group of students that even Krueger and Dale found benefited significantly from attending elite schools: those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Kids from poor families seem to profit from exposure to Amherst or Northwestern much more than kids from well-off families. Why? One possible answer is that they learn sociological cues and customs to which they have not been exposed before. In his 2003 book, Limbo, Alfred Lubrano, the son of a bricklayer, analyzed what happens when people from working-class backgrounds enter the white-collar culture. Part of their socialization, Lubrano wrote, is learning to act dispassionate and outwardly composed at all times, regardless of how they might feel inside. Students from well-off communities generally arrive at college already trained to masquerade as calm. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds may benefit from exposure to this way of carrying oneself—a trait that may be particularly in evidence at the top colleges."</p>
<p>I would suggest that anyone who is interested should read the original publications by Kruger and Dale. The research was not very impressive. If you read the original publication, it is unlikely that you will accept the conclusions that are often attritubed to this research.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^
thank you...they are actually quite good researchers, but several of their works that have been used recently in several articles are really not terribly impressive, especially when one considers their methodologies and the samples they use in their data analysis.</p>
<p>I think it is a mistake to think that unless one goes to HPY they will not have the benefit of extraordinarily brilliant peers. These schools could fill their incoming classes two or three times over with equally bright students from the applicant pool. As admissions has become more and more competitive, with more and more brilliant accomplished students seeking admission to a limited number of elite schools (with a stable number of freshman places) those not admitted must logically go to "lesser" institutions. And indeed, Harvard admissions would be the first to explain that they do not make admissions decisions solely on academic ability/accomplishments. Rather, they do "holistic" admissions, to create a diverse freshman class. So there are brilliant peers at many many other fine schools. </p>
<p>And I would like to clarify the TA "teaching" comment above. It was my understanding that even at elite research universities, only professors teach at the larger lectures, but TA's may handle smaller sections for some courses. Is this incorrect?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Proponents of the Ivy League will argue here that there are substantial benefits to an Ivy League education—having intelligent people around all the time, the headiness of the intellectual climate, the pride that comes with thinking (however ill-based the thought may be, we've certainly all entertained it) that we are among the very best. Yet, write Krueger and Dale, “An able student who attends a lower tier school can find able students to study with,” just like a student at an Ivy League school can always surround himself with dolts. And the same goes for one's academic endeavors or intellectual pride. In short, higher education is what you make of it...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it is a mistake to think that unless one goes to HPY they will not have the benefit of extraordinarily brilliant peers. These schools could fill their incoming classes two or three times over with equally bright students from the applicant pool. As admissions has become more and more competitive, with more and more brilliant accomplished students seeking admission to a limited number of elite schools (with a stable number of freshman places) those not admitted must logically go to "lesser" institutions. And indeed, Harvard admissions would be the first to explain that they do not make admissions decisions solely on academic ability/accomplishments. Rather, they do "holistic" admissions, to create a diverse freshman class. So there are brilliant peers at many many other fine schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, see, I think that actually disproves their own case, rather than proving it. Specifically, Kreuger and Dale are presuming that college students are far more rational people than they really are.</p>
<p>Let's face it. College students are just kids. Kids do foolish things all the time. That's why we don't allow people to drink before they're 21. That's why auto insurance companies charge far more to insure somebody that is young than somebody than is old. That's due to the simple realization that young people are often times irrational. Yes, of course it is true that an able college student can find other able students to study with and network with. But come on. Let's be real. Most college kids are not going to do that. Most of them are just going to choose to interact with whoever happens to be around - i.e. their dormmates. If those dormmates are highly capable and motivated, then that student will benefit. But if those dormmates happen to be lazy, unintellectual, and more interested in partying and drinking than in studying, than that student will suffer. </p>
<p>Numerous sociological studies have shown how difficult it is for adults to resist temptation when it is right there in their face. Proximity creates temptation. For example, you might vow never to gamble, but put a casino next-door, and there is a decent chance you will break his vow. Anybody who has ever tried to go on a diet knows that one of the first things you do is throw away all of the junk food in your house, because if it's there, you will be tempted to eat it. Similarly, if you take an otherwise highly motivated student and house him with a bunch of lazy party revelers, then there is a good chance that he will also become a lazy party reveler. People tend to copy what they see around them. It's very hard to make the choice to study when your dormmates around are waving event tickets in your face and tempting you to go out every day. </p>
<p>I agree that fundamentally, education is what you make of it. But let's be honest and admit to ourselves that sociological and environmental factors do matter. People's behaviors are affected by their cultural environment. Let's face it. Many schools out there do not have a student body culture that respects intellectualism or hard work. There really are schools out there where the prevailing student culture is that college is little more than a 4-year keg party. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What the Krueger and Dale study says, then, is that these considerations are not terribly important. A student's credentials may dazzle interviewers when he first enters the job market, but, soon after that, his competence matters much more. If a person who goes to Oklahoma State is as smart and talented and capable as someone who gets into Princeton, he'll end up doing just as well...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right there is the other fatal flaw in Krueger & Dale. I agree that a person's competence matters much more, once he gets the job. But the key is, * he has to get the job first *. For every Princeton graduate who gets hired into a plum private equity job, I am quite sure that there were plenty of other people in the world who were equally as qualified, perhaps more so. The problem is, how would anybody know that? How would anybody know where to find these people? What Princeton has done through its brand name is reduce employer search costs, and hence, hiring Princeton graduates is therefore an economically rational decision. Employers can recruit at Princeton knowing that they are likely to find a boatload of highly qualified candidates there. I'm sure that there might be a few strong candidates at Oklahoma State too, but the problem is that you then have to spend time trying to separating the qualified candidates from the slew of the unqualified. Grades don't exactly cut it as a separations mechanism because plenty of people take easy classes where they can get top grades for doing and knowing very little. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example. Let's say you travel to an unfamiliar city and you are looking for a good cup of coffee. You see a local coffee shop that you have never heard of, and you also see Starbucks. Which one are you likely to go to? Most people will choose Starbucks. Why? Brand name. Starbucks has built a brand name that equates to highly consistent and high quality coffee. You walk into any Starbucks in the country, and you can predict that you are going to get some good coffee. That other coffee shop might actually be sellling better coffee than Starbucks. But the problem is, how would you know that, ex-ante? The only way for you to know that is to actually go to that other coffee shop and actually buy a cup there. What if it turns out to be worse coffee? Then you just wasted your time and money. That's ex-ante risk. You just wasted time and money when you could have been going to Starbucks all along. Hence, the safer choice is for you to simply make the well-branded choice in the first place. In some sense, that's not "fair" to that other coffee shop because it doesn't even get the chance to compete for your dollars. But it is entirely rational given the search costs and the risk. </p>
<p>That's just a simple illustration of the importance of brand names. Every year, businesses spend billions of dollars in promoting their brand names. Why do this, if it doesn't generate any returns on investment? Are these companies being stupid? I think these companies are NOT being stupid, and that they know full well that a strong brand name generates greater demand. </p>
<p>So, taking it back to the example of Princeton vs. Oklahoma State, it is clearly true that Princeton's major advantage over OSU is its brand name. But brand name is a valuable asset and brand name is an economically rational reason to choose one school over another. Sure, by turning down Princeton for Oklahoma State, I may theoretically get an education, and hence be just as qualified as I would have been has I just gone to Princeton. The problem is, how would employers know that? How would I be able to * credibly signal * this fact to them? After all, every other student at OSU is going to want to claim to prospective employers that they are just as good as the students at Princeton, even if they are not. Hence, employers have no more reason to believe my claim than they are to believe everybody else at OSU. That's the problem.</p>
<p>Nor do the probems end after you get the job. I agree that once you have the job, competence matters and school brand-name fades away. But once you have a good job, that provides you with the opportunity to get other good jobs, and that's how the ball keeps rolling. For example, I know a guy who graduated from Harvard and joined an elite investment bank. He did well there, and so joined an elite private equity firm, and afterwards, joined jumped to other elite private equity firms, and now he's a major financier. Granted, he was obviously highly competent at each step. But the Harvard brand name was what got the ball rolling in the first place. In contrast, if you go to a no-name school, you might end up with a mediocre job that only leads to other medicore jobs. Yeah, by doing well in all of these jobs, I'm sure you will move up. But how long does that take? Let's face it. There are a LOT of mediocre jobs out there where opportunities to move up are few. I know other people who are caught in that trap - where they have to wait for years, possibly decades, for opportunities to move up, no matter how well they do. In contrast, that Harvard guy is clearly on the fast track. He may make executive management while he's still in his 30's.</p>
<p>
I have read their 51 page paper previously and reviewed it again. I will not speak for the veracity of the formulas they use in the first 13 pages, since they are rather complicated, but I do understand their principles. I will point out what I think are some of their flaws but unlike edad and AdOfficer, I don't consider them fatal.</p>
<p>The Krueger and Dale paper is often compared to the paper of Caroline Hoxby ("The Returns to Attending a More Selective College: 1960 to the Present, 1998") that found that there is an economic advantage to attending more elite schools. However, many would argue that Krueger and Dale's paper was more methodologically rigorous since it controls for the backgrounds of the students more since students from affluent backgrounds tend to maintain their economic advantages throughout their working career. Also the database used, the College and Beyond Survey was also analyzed by Bowen and Bok in "The Shape of the River" to reach their conclusions on Race in college admissions, and for this and their use of other comparative databases, I consider the database used as robust.</p>
<p>As far as their methodologies, I agree with their decisions to exclude the 4 historical black colleges and use only data from full-time students. They also considered schools that were within 25 SAT points "equivalent" and I consider this reasonable also. I think matching students who went to different schools can be a difficult task and their methods to do this also appeared to be quite reasonable. In the end, 44% (6,335) of students were "matched" with students attending other schools and I consider this fairly good.</p>
<p>The key to the paper's multivariate analysis was controlling for the background of the students. This was important since without it, there was a 6% income advantage for attending a school with a 100 point income advantage. Here they used parental income. However parental income was missing for many of the participants and they had to estimate the income from the mother's and father's education and occupation. This obviously is not a perfect way, but I consider it vital to take the economic background of the student into consideration and I believe other studies are flawed by not considering it.</p>
<p>One thing they found is that attending a school with 100 point higher SAT resulted in a decrease of about 7% in class rank but a higher chance of obtaining an advanced degree. Here one can argue that obtaining a higher degree should be associated with higher income. The increase of 7% in class rank, at the less selective institution, was associated with greater than a 3% increase in earnings. They speculate that the higher class rank obtained at the lesser institution may offset any other effect of a less selective institution because employers (and graduate schools) may value the students higher class rank. Speculation, of course, is only a hypothesis, but all studies have questions that are left unanswered and this is not an assumption critical to the findings of their paper.</p>
<p>In the end, I think Krueger and Dale importantly attempt to control and examine variables that are not examined by the Hoxby study or other studies like the one by Ehrenberg, Brewer and Eide. I believe these crucial differences result in the contrarian findings of the other studies. Since the Krueger and Dale is only one study, perhaps the issue won't be settled until another study examining similar issues and variables is undertaken.</p>
<p>If correct, the premise that one can equally succeed economically at a less selective institution if qualified to enter a more elite school is an important one for students who are considering costs and other factors in the application process. Regardless, they clearly can also look forward to a full and successful life even if they don't get into their top choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If correct, the premise that one can equally succeed economically at a less selective institution if qualified to enter a more elite school is an important one for students who are considering costs and other factors in the application process. Regardless, they clearly can also look forward to a full and successful life even if they don't get into their top choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will admit, I haven't (yet) read the Krueger/Dale study. </p>
<p>However, I would point out that those who are qualified to enter elite schools but choose to enter less selective schools don't do so randomly. There are REASONS for why they do so. After all, nobody gets into Harvard and then ramdomly decides to turn it down to go to some no-name school instead. If you are one of the rare people who do, then you probably have very good reasons to do so.</p>
<p>I can personally think of several instances where people have good reasons for doing so. For example, many no-name schools offer combined BS/MD programs where you are guaranteed admission to med-school. That guarantee is priceless in this day and age when about half of all premed applicants get rejected from every single med-school they apply to (and that's just talking about applicants - plenty of premeds don't even bother to apply because they know they won't get in anywhere). That guarantee is an excellent reason to turn down a top school. </p>
<p>Another reason would be sports. I know a guy who turned down an Ivy for his far less regarded state school. Why? Simple. Football. Not only was his state school going to give him a full football scholarship, but he also reasoned that that state school would give him the best shot at getting to the NFL, which is his dream. Ivies can be helpful for many things, but not if you want to have your best shot at getting into the NFL. </p>
<p>I'll give you another example. I know another guy who turned down an Ivy to go to a local state school. Why? Simple. He wanted to keep working in his family's business. He knew that after graduation, he was just going to go back to that business, and after his father retires, he is going to run it. Hence, since he already knows what his career will be, he figured that he is better off by helping to build up that business, and that means staying local. Frankly, he ended up making far more money than most Ivy League grads did, simply because that business was highly successful. </p>
<p>Numerous other possible hidden variables exist - from the lower-ranked school offering you merit scholarships, to older re-entry students who have spouses and kids and don't want to uproot their families (and hence might have to go to a local no-name school as opposed to a top school), and so forth. </p>
<p>But the point is, the pool of people who get into top-ranked schools but choose to go to low-ranked ones is not a random pool. Rather, it's a * self-selected * pool. Any group of people who is self-selected obviously has some motivations that distinguish them from the rest of the population.</p>
<p>Let me give you an analogy. People have remarked at how studious and hard-working are Asian immigrants, and how economically successful they are. But does that mean that ALL Asians are studious and hard-working, or that they would ALL be economically successful if they immigrated here? Of course not. Those particular Asians who immigrated to the US are a highly self-selected group, mainly consisting of the most motivated and toughest group of Asians. You need a lot of motivation and toughness to put up with the pain of moving to an entirely new country and learning an entirely new language and culture. Lazy Asians don't want to do that, and so that's why lazy Asians are not the ones who immigrated.</p>
<p>
All excellent points and I agree this is obviously true for many applicants (and yes I have also heard the immigrant analogy). However your premise holds if there were a strict hierachy in peoples choices based only on SAT scores. This is clearly not the case. If you look at the stat pages on CC posters, it's occasionaly a topsy turvy world for school preference out of kilt with SAT scores.
I have seen
Tufts over Duke and Cornell;
Georgetown over Amherst and Williams;
Georgetown(1), ND (1) over Dartmouth (6), Williams (6)
Every school (State schools and Privates) over Princeton (12)
Tulane (1) over Cornell (4) over Amherst (11)
Penn (1) Yale (3)
Penn over HYP</p>
<p>The Krueger and Dale paper did say applicants in general applied to a fairly narrow range of schools (139 SAT point average). So these types of flips are not that rare and probably often reflect just subtle preference and not only for extenuating circumstances as you suggest. I am sure there are also middle to upper tier flips between schools not in the Ivy League that I didn't analyze. I was looking for flips primarily with Ivy League schools. But I would guess the same would hold true for non-Ivy League schools. I also think important reasons for final flips in the schools attended are probably related to geography and financial circumstances (attending a closer cheaper state school, for example) and these applicants probably wouldn't be that "special" compared to those choosing to attend the more elite school.</p>
<p>werner...
i actually disagree with you...and it's interesting that you mention hoxby's work - i have a lot more faith in her work than krueger and dale's. after controlling for many different factors like race, gender, gpa, sat scores, and cohort hoxby presents pretty concrete statistical and qualitative evidence to support the claim that where you go to school does really matter. kreuger and dale, if i remember correctly, only use the cofhe schools - about 25 at the time - in their work while hoxby examines income information from graduates of well over that number of institutions (100+ i think). in addition, kreuger and dale only used data from a single cohort of students, which does not account for generational differences in earnings nor the increasing level of prestige the ivies have experienced over generations while hoxby uses multiple cohorts; in addition, k and d used both men and women (hoxby only used men) in their study, not taking into account the income differential between the sexes and the gains women have made across generations in earnings while hoxby only looked at male students to control for the income disparity between the sexes; kreuger and dale also did not include data on minority students (this is a big deal, especially since the income disparity between whites and people of color has shrunk dramatically over the past several decades), varsity athletes, students at elite public institutions or admitted students with sat scores below 1350 (old scale) in their analysis while hoxby did. hoxby's work seems to control for many more social and generational factors than does kreuger and dale's work and covers a broader range of institutions.</p>
<p>To answer the OP... A lot of it is name recognition. When you graduate from Columbia or Yale or Cornell and apply for a job, that is gonna be a major booster.
Also, if you work insanely hard in high school, you want to feel like it was all worthwhile... By getting into a very prestigious college.
Plus the opportunities and resources at these schools surpass most others.</p>
<p>At least, these are three of my main reasons, and probably many others' as well.</p>
<p>AdOfficer-We're really comparing two totally different studies. K and D are focusing on students who got in but chose not to attend an elite school. H is looking at differences based on attending a college two incremental steps different based on Baron's dividing all colleges into 8 cohorts based on selectivity. K and D focus on earnings 20 years out, H 10 years out (perhaps elites get kick started faster?). K and D look at men and women, H looks at men only (she just mentions women should be able to use men's earnings as a guide, just not an assumption I'm comfortable with). K and D use SAT scores, H SAT percentages. K and D at least try to control for family wealth before college, H does not. K and D did include information on minority students, it's just the number in their data set was relatively small (839 blacks). They had chosen to exclude 4 historically black colleges from the study. K and D did include public schools (Penn State, Michigan, North Carolina, Miami-Ohio). K and D included ALL students that matriculated to the private schools (colleges in the study had average SATs of between 1020 and 1360). The public schools because of the relative size and different demographics from the private schools were the ones where K and D had a specific cohort to include (not exclude) all known minority students, all varsity athletes, all students with SAT of 1350 and above, and a random sampling of the other students. I would say if anything H study is flawed in comparison to K and D, particularly since H did not try to control for family wealth before matriculation. But really they are two very different studies. I guess we'll agree to disagree.</p>
<p>AdOfficer- I'd just like to add that the most important thing about the K and D study was controling for the economic backgrounds of the students before college since students from affluent backgrounds tend to maintain their economic advantages throughout their working career (Higher SAT schools tend to have more affluent students). Without this element, K and D would have shown the exact same thing as the Hoxby study and several other studies that attending a school with higher SATs led to an increase in income (in the case of K and D, a 6% increase in income for attending a school with a 100 point SAT advantage). But when they controlled for parental economic background, they found no difference. Also the H and D study is the only study that looked at students who got in the school that had an SAT advantage but went elsewhere, an important difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of it is name recognition. When you graduate from Columbia or Yale or Cornell and apply for a job, that is gonna be a major booster.
[/quote]
Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, etc. don't have name recognition? Not to mention their vast numbers of alumni.</p>