You aren't where you went

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, the entire idea for Google wasn't spawned until Sergey and Larry met each other at Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, but they met as graduate student at Stanford not as UG and that is my point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For the most part, it takes a degree from an Ivy League school, or MIT, Stanford, CalTech, or Carnegie Mellon--America's top engineering schools--even to get invited to interview.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think Google interviews at UCI, UCSB and UCLA too.</p>

<p>look, an ivy league degree won't mean much at all in respect to job advancement if you don't have the proper skills and "soft skills"</p>

<p>I have seen this through a lot of personal first hand accounts</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maximizing your chances doesn't just come from attending one of a handful of schools. With this generation's college turn out, the amount of "first rate" institutions is growing quicker than anyone predicted (mainly because the original "top schools" don't have enough space to admit all of the talented students that apply). Plenty of grads from my high school got admitted to top LAC's and engineering schools, but went down to UIUC instead (why pay $50k/yr when you can get the same degree cheaper, and just do the grad work there later).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with the above. A lot of colleges become more selective not just the top colleges.</p>

<p>But I think low-income students do benefit the most from attending top colleges. I think not only the tuition is free for most low-income students but college is where low-income students get to interact with different people who might not have had a chance to meet them before. For example, people who can't afford to travel and meet different culture and different people, then college provides an opportunity to meet different people of different culture. While people who can afford to travel on their own money, already have the opportunity to meet and interface with different people before entering college.</p>

<p>And that also brings up another question: Do you really want to work in a place where your pedigree is more important than the individual? Some do, some do not.</p>

<p>The problem with all of these debates is that they are never "one size fits all." I, for one, didn't bother applying to big names for jobs because they never interested me. I chose my undergrad largely because of soft factors. I don't believe it works for everyone, but I would be miserable at one of the Big 4 or one of the top consulting firms. The lifestyle offers NO appeal to me. </p>

<p>The second it takes me away from friends, family, and time to travel and pursue my hobbies, a job becomes meaningless to me. </p>

<p>Why should I care, then, that I can't get a job at Google because Brin and Page want a certain cohort? I support their right to hire who they want, the right of CCers to want to be part of that cohort, and the right of those who are just as happy working less for more free time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The second it takes me away from friends, family, and time to travel and pursue my hobbies, a job becomes meaningless to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm with you there. I made it a point at every job interview that I don't do travel. My family comes first.
But I think others might find it exciting to travel, I know I did before I had my family. One has to decide what one is suited for.</p>

<p>On another topic, clearly based from my own curiosity, I wonder what the writer meant when he said "my family's legit". Oh well, I'm giving the post back to the philosopical debaters :)</p>

<p>Sometimes going to an elite school can be a handicap on the job. Especially if you have an arrogant attitude. I have heard many stories of Harvard Med school graduates that did not get along with anyone. No-one liked them. Even with a good attitude, many times your colleagues and the boss will have a already made assumptions about you and make it more difficult than if you went to a state school.</p>

<p>Lame thread.</p>

<p>Of course you are where you went. Whether people admit it or not, students are shaped by their environments more than they think, especially in the 18-22 age range. You put a person at Harvard and the person will be immersed in a diverse community of thought with high achieving students. You put a person at a community college and the person will be surrounded by people of less intellectual caliber. Consequently, the person who leaves Harvard will be different (not necessarily better, however) from the person who leaves community college. FACT. Surely the person has innate qualities that are unlikely to be diminished by the environment, but these qualities are enhanced/challenged/reevaluated at Harvard more stringently than at a community college.</p>

<p>Maybe there is a difference in getting a degree from Harvard and a degree from a tier 3 university.
However, many, many intelligent people do not get to attend HYPSM or any other top 10 university.
It seems arrogant to say that these people are precluded from any success in life.</p>

<p>The difference, I suppose, is "success in life," versus "achieving the most of your potential."</p>

<p>Right, but what is "success in life?" On this site, it's going to a top 25 school, then either becoming an i-banker, doctor, lawyer, or college professor at a top 25 school.</p>

<p>CEO of a Fortune 500 might be acceptable, depending on the salary. </p>

<p>Basically, success on this site is being part of the Gibson-middle class of $200K per annum and above. Schoolteachers, aid workers, state legislators, public defenders (even though they are attorneys), and nurses need not apply.</p>

<p>I-researcher!</p>

<p>The people at Harvard and similarly selective schools are a self-selecting group who are already on certain paths towards success. The main factor is not that they attended Harvard and rubbed off on one another, but that they were high achievers to begin with. The most selective schools probably actually do the least when it comes to impacting the path of success for their students. After all, they only accept those who are already on a very sharp upward trajectory. Take most HYP admits and place them at tier 3 schools and they'd still be successful. It's the people, not the institution that makes the greatest difference.</p>

<p>As FLAVDAD said...the school does not determine a person's "success" (if we're talking about the typical CC attitude that being successful is making 200k+ a year). Success is determined by the person and the person only, and it only happens so that highly motivated, intelligent people happen to go to schools like Harvard and Yale. </p>

<p>If we were to take two clones with equal motivation, intelligence, and perseverance, put one in Harvard, and another in State U, I'd wager that 10 or 15 years later, they would be at the exact same place success-wise.</p>

<p>An interesting idea, but I have to ask if it is really so?</p>

<p>I'm really contemplating the real difference myself, (for financial reasons), and I am just wondering about lost research opportunities, the chance to hook up with better-matched peers, etc. if I choose to go to a cheaper school.</p>

<p>Well think about it this way.
If a person with the intelligence and the motivation of a Harvard student went to state U, is it not reasonable to assume that he will use his intelligence and drive to overcome the relative obstacles that State U presents for him?
Truly motivated and intelligent people reach their full potential in the face of adversity : )</p>

<p>He might overcome the obstacles with some compensation, but reaching equal footing seems a different matter though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Truly motivated and intelligent people reach their full potential in the face of adversity : )

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That reminds me of the myth that only authors who had experienced tragedy firsthand could write great litterature. </p>

<p>Bill Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and that did not prevent him from succeeding. With all his drive and motivation he still took advantage of any breaks he got along the way even from attending Harvard before dropping out. </p>

<p>The spillover effects from attending an elite university are undeniable. For two equally bright students, the one with a degree from an elite school will have an advantage over the other. Not insurmountable, but still an advantage. It is like handicapping in golf. I am a pretty strong player. Another strong player player can still beat me even if he give me a few shots per round. Give me a shot per hole and you'd have to be Tiger Woods to beat me. </p>

<p>Pursuing that golf analogy, the issue is how much of a handicap advantage an elite school gives you. Take the example of MIT which I know well. If you are simply looking to get any job in engineering, you might do as well from any number of solid tech schools and make nearly the same starting salary. If you are actually looking to be a petroleum engineer you might actually be better off elsewhere. But if you want to work for Google, Microsoft or as Sakky mentioned branch off into I-banking or consulting, you get a huge advantage. Same thing with graduate school or professional school admission. If you don't care about where you go for your PhD or your MBA, many schools can get you there. If you want to get into ANY med school, some universities with grade inflation may possibly offer you an easier path. But if you want to get in to HMS, Wharton or a top biology PhD program with a reasonable chance or landing a tenure track position, the handicap advantage is very large. </p>

<p>In the end, the extra advantage will not guarantee you will outperform others every time. Statistically though, it does mean that over many events, you will do better than an equally talented person without the advantage. Over a lifetime, it could be very substantial, especially when your starting point has a lot to do with where you end up.</p>

<p>At my job, there's several people from Harvard, nobody really goes "wow" when they hear it, and there are also people from schools like UMBC, Howard, Penn State, everyone pretty much assumes that when you get hired they assume you have the ability to do the job. </p>

<p>My resume doesn't start with my education info, it ends near the bottom with where i attended college. I agree that it's a big deal to some employers in certain industries, but I'm willing to bet if the biggest accomplishment in your life is graduating from Harvard, when you are 30 years old, no one will be impressed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
With all his drive and motivation he still took advantage of any breaks he got along the way even from attending Harvard before dropping out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From what I read, he did not want to attend Harvard but his parent told him to do it for at least one year and that is exactly what he did.</p>