berryberry61

"Similarly, if your goal is academic/professional success but you specifically preclude things that would garner money and prestige, you're hinering yoursef because they are all caused by the same thing. "

phear me - sorry, but again IMO you are way off base here.

First, professional success is not simply tied to how much money one makes and the prestige of the University one graduated from. If you believe that, you have a very simplistic, distorted view of the world.

Second, as I have mentioned, I did not graduate from a "name" prestige college. And yet there I was making well over your oft quoted $500K a year as Vice President for a well known national firm. However, after deciding there was much more to life than simply making money, I took some time off and now work in the education field. While still maing a comfortable living, it does not come close to what I earned previously. But yet I am even more successful in my new role, I have more time to spend with my family and enjoying life. To believe as you do that I would be less successful in my new role vs my old one simply because the size of my paycheck has been reduced is very simplistic and incorrect thinking.

phear_me

berry,

I have said time and time again that not having a top pedigree isn't a deterministic factor, but that many industries will be effectively off limits without one and a steep career trajectory will be easier to obtain with one.

The best way to make money is always to have your own company, but that's not the argument I am making.

Furthermore, I did not equate professional success with money, but made an argument for how they are highly correlated. As I said before, you continue to argue against a straw man, and not the actual argument I am making. I simply said, as one point in my argument, that prestige and income can be viewed as a proxy for professional success.

Steve Jobs may have had a goal just to make a great product, or change the world through the personal computer, but notice how he got rich doing it even if that wasn't his goal? THAT's the point I'm making ...

Creekland

This is only true if one puts a high value on prestige and income as you do. I know plenty of people who are content and successful with life who have neither plentiful money nor worldly prestige. I also know plenty who have oodles of money and/or prestige who are never content. They are always chasing something more. I do not see a high correlation at all between the two with my definition of success (which is probably best boiled down to contentment and enjoyment with life - owning a successful business isn't necessary for everyone).

Materialism and fame is not the right path for everyone. It's probably not the right path for most people seeking Christian colleges. However, your views are good to have on here so that anyone who shares your views can have your advice. One needs to know themselves and their goals.

For what it's worth, I also know plenty with oodles of money and contentment - none have prestige by Ivy standards nor do they seem jealous or wishful that they had chosen a different path.

As stated before - to each our own.

berryberry61

Phear me - ok, one final time.

now you say "Furthermore, I did not equate professional success with money"

And yet in post 18, you said "I used the money as an indicator of success, because companies pay you what you're worth."

Hmmmmmmmm. Seems like you are contradicting yourself once again.

In the end, i believe the whole premise of your argument on this thread is based on this quote which you posted in post 14:

"My chose to study philosophy/theology at a Christian university has cost my professional life dearly, and even with masters degrees from top universities (such as MIT) most of the top firms in my field still won't take a serious look at me because they ONLY take students from top grad/undergrad."

So in essence because you have not achieved a high salary nor professional success, which you attribute to your attending a Christian University, you seem to believe the same will hold true for everyone else. Sorry, but I clearly disagree

hoveringmom

I have to jump in here because I find 'phear's' argument deeply disturbing. Forgive me for my bluntness, but he is either narcissistic (conflating his own world view with THE world view) or seriously deluded. Believe me, there are plenty of people - like me - who believe that success has only minimally to do with money or power (in its crude sense). To use just one small example, there are many artists out there - I mean, visual, performing, writers, musicians, etc. - who are intensely successful and live their lives with joy and meaning .... and make (gasp!) less than $100,000 or less than $50,000. Many many. In Phear's own world, he is probably surrounded by people who are always desperately trying to out-trump the other with bigger and better toys/phallic symbols so they can thump themselves on the chest and say, "Gosh, I'm powerful! Look at me! Be envious!"
And you know what? That's fine if that's what they want to do. But to imagine that everyone is just like them, or if they're not, they're failures, would be insulting if it weren't so laughably ridiculous. It's a big world out there. There are so many ways to live. How do you want to live your life/

phear_me

Hovering,

Is this what we are now? Are we a body that contents itself with mediocrity while we avoid personal responsibility for every failure and second place finish by comforting ourselves with a false fatalism that says, "Oh, it must have been God's will." Such trite and superficial nonsense dominates western evangelical thinking to the severe handicap and detriment of the persuasiveness and intellectual rigor of the modern american community. Christians are taught that power and money and influence are "bad" and that the pursuit of "higher" goals like art, or worship, or pastoring are superior. The result? The church skews strongly towards a passive, small, and overly feminine culture with a strong tendency to deride and reject the strong, blunt, CEO type personalities that play a vital role in the body of Christ. It also precludes itself to your type of thinking, "Phear thinks everyone should have better toys and phallic symbols because he MUST need to impress us because why else would he pursue money?" Such an attitude is the picture of grace and love - why can't we all be more like your shining example of Philippians chapter 2?

What if I told you that 50% of my income goes to Samaritans Purse and hundreds of children were prevented from starving because of my financial success? Or what if you found out that I paid for a new church building for my congregation? Or that I used my influence to help elect a pro-life conservative to congress? I am NOT saying I did those things, but maybe some people pursue excellence, and the corresponding money and power and influence, for the right reasons. Perhaps all of us who have been blessed with a college education should be pursuing excellence within the field that God has called us to so our ability to influence our chosen fields for the kingdom of Christ is maximized. With this in mind, my point still stands that in that in choosing to attend a less prestigious university, a student is also choosing to flatten their professional trajectory in many fields. This isn't true for every field, i.e. teaching children or nursing, but it is true for a great many fields and that fact cannot and should not be ignored.

I will explain again, since there seems to be quite a bit of confusion over the definition of the word "proxy" that in the absence of objectivity, it makes sense to use income as a proxy for success in most industries. It's not a perfect measure, but it's hard to think of someone really successful in their field that isn't well compensated. I'm willing to entertain counterexamples if you have them. Lets even use your example of an artist. If the artist is an important figure influencing her field, her paintings will command a substantial premium. For example, Thomas Kinkaid.

As a final note, I find your insults, i.e. "he must be narcissistic or deluded" to be shortsighted and in poor taste before our Father. If this drivel represents your best efforts at making an argument, then you have succeeded in making the case for a prestigious education far better than I ever could alone.


Berry Berry,

You said, "So in essence because you have not achieved a high salary nor professional success, which you attribute to your attending a Christian University, you seem to believe the same will hold true for everyone else. Sorry, but I clearly disagree."

I find it interesting how people on message boards, and sadly particularly Christians, have a tendency to suddenly become professional psychics and psychologists. Given such an effort you are, rather predictably, quite wrong. This thread isn't and shouldn't be about me, but I will quell your rhetoric none the less. I have achieved a high salary (although, to be clear, most people who do well financially are rewarded on a performance based incentive, such as bonus or stock options, not salary) and a high level of professional success (relative to where I'm at in life). I will also say that I am in private equity and am in the top 2% of earners in this country. I am also still a couple years shy of 30, so there's a long way to go yet. I have achieved a relatively high level of success despite having gone to a Christian university. But I can tell you that during my interview, I was asked point blank, "Do you regret your choice of undergrad." The truth is that I don't, but if I hadn't the luxury of going to USC and MIT for grad school, an opportunity many students at Christian universities won't have, the private equity door would have NEVER been opened to me. Christian students deserve to know what they are giving up when choosing to attend a religious university as well as what they are gaining. Finally, whether or not I had achieved this level of success is irrelevant to the validity of my arguments (ad hominem fallacy).

A note for the record: I'm not just complaining about this. I've volunteered hundreds of hours and much of my own money working with (and sometimes against) my alma mater to improve the perception of, and the final product offered by, one of the leading universities. Academic rigor, prestige, and a Christian foundation should not be mutually exclusive concepts. However, the harsh reality is that Christian students are giving up a good measure of their work force opportunity in many fields by choosing to attend an evangelical university, and they deserve to go into that choice with eyes open. All the childish attacks against me aren't going to change that truth and they certainly aren't going to please God.

If I have caused offense to anyone, I apologize. But I will not apologize for the truth. I'd like to think we are a generation that will do more than simply bury our talents in the sand ...

musicamusica

Thomas Kinkaid---a great example of fraud---in his business dealings as well as his "art".

Christian News Report: Thomas Kinkade: Fraud Allegations

Perhaps Vincent Van Gogh is a better example. Never sold a painting, but is now in every major museum in the world.

I have no bones in this Baylor discussion (looking for info for a friend), but the T Kinkade allusion was too priceless to ignore.

berryberry61

phear me - once again you contradict yourself with your response and your earlier statements, but that is nothing new. At this point, we should move on and again, simply agree to disagree

phear_me

musicamusica,

A group of financially subpar Christians complaining because their faulty investment went sour? Why am I not surprised? I confess that Kinkaid was the only Christian artist I could think of - perhaps my error serves as a testament to the sorry state of Christian influence (outside of a few athletes) in this country. I stand corrected for my faulty use of Kinkaid as an example of influence.

berryberry61,

I agree that we should let things go. The thread more than speaks for itself and at this point there's little to be gained by rehashing the same arguments.

Creekland

Is now the time to mention that even with College Confidential the advice is that it doesn't matter which undergrad school one chooses if one is looking to go pre-med? Check out the links in the FAQ post...

Premed Forum FAQs: Read First

This link probably hashes it out the best (from above link):

The Age Old Question

And this post sums it up (more or less) for those not wanting to click on and wade through links:

------------------------
I was on the admissions commitee of one of the aforementioned medical schools, and currently work at another one. Top medical schools draw disproportionately from top undergraduate colleges since the top students from those schools apply there. It only makes sense that they would be well represented. Additionally, there may be less students of similar caliber applying from other schools-the applicant pool is not as deep. On the other hand, top medical schools do not need to fill their class with Ivy Leaguers to boost their prestige so they can afford to take the best wherever they may be. In fact, top medical schools are looking for wide representation at many different colleges whether they be little known schools in the deep South or religious colleges or large state schools with a heterogenous student body with a wide range in academic capabilities. A top student from such a school, provided he/she has a strong record and MCAT scores, may actually stand out from the crowd and be interviewed. There will not be many other applicants (sometimes none) from their school. In contrast, we might receive 30 applications each from places like Penn and Princeton but decide to interview only a third of them. Those odds are certainly better than the general applicant pool but the advantage does not apply to the individual applicant with similar credentials who went to school elsewhere and stands out.

In contrast to your first points, I think going to a higher ranked college may make more of a difference when applying to a lower ranked medical school. In order to boost prestige (as well as to get the best available students), they may take an Ivy-leaguer or top 10 LAC student with say a 3.3 GPA over a strong student from a state school with say a 3.7 average. They also may decide to take a certain number from particular Ivy League Schools in order to cultivate a positive relationship. For example, I saw that in a recent year, 11 out of 100 or so incoming students at Boston University graduated from Brown.
------------------------------

What matters is EXACTLY what I have been told by workers in the field... Maybe I feel better about the advice I might find here for my middle son after all...

He'll be getting oodles of info from potential choices after he takes the PSAT in a couple of weeks. His scores on practice tests are in the National Merit range even as a sophomore and I can't see him declining with one more year to go. We'll be whittling from the choices over time - looking for Eastern half of the US AND a free ride or close to it. It may be Christian or not - he'll decide that with visits, etc.

Other than academia and maybe California, I'm having a tough time figuring out a field where this applies for undergrad. I know some people at the top of their fields locally who have built 'stuff' for churches and donated to Samaritan's Purse, etc, without the pedigree that's supposedly needed. Heck, one didn't even go to college period - just straight into business. I'm certainly not advocating that route nor choosing it for my sons, but I feel the same way about elite/expensive colleges. There's only 'value' in them (for undergrad) if one believes there is. To us, the debt load is just not worth it when there are other, better, options.

hoveringmom

Phear,
I truly have no idea what you're talking about when you speak of mediocrity and God's will in 'response' to what I was saying. Here's what I hear your assumptions are (other than some meandering stuff):
1. People are successful insofar as they make a lot of money and/or have a lot of power. Ergo: Money/power is directly proportional to success.
2. Anyone who doesn't make a lot of money and/or have a lot of power obviously wants to, but can't.
3. Since Ivy league schools increase your chances of landing a megamoney job immediately post graduation (not sure if this is proven, but let's say it is), and since success is proportional to megamoney, then ipso facto, Ivy League school pedagrees are directly proportional to success.

Here are the fallacies:
1. You choose to define success purely in the way that you yourself perceive success. To you, there is no other success except a ton of money and big toys and a big stick. Since you define success only by your yardstick, you are at a loss as to how to measure other forms of success, and simply deny they are there, or conflate them with 'mediocrity.' Artists, priests, dancers, carpenters--according to you, these people are all failures or mediocre, since they don't make a lot of money and don't have a lot of 'power' in its crude, 'big stick' sense.
2. Since you have blinders around all other forms of success you simply cannot see others' happiness and success in an array of different careers and life choices. You deny they are there.
3. Statistically, there is not strong, unchallenged proof that an undergrad Ivy education translates into higher long term salaries on average. I've seen stats making the cases of both sides. If there is a correlation, it's debatable if the Ivy League college itself is responsible, since many students enter the schools already with intelligence, high skills, and major connections: Dad is a Congressman, Mom works on Wall Street. It's true that Ivies give you a leg up on connections in some jobs. It's the Club aspect, though. And you've got to make use of it. Merely going there means nothing. At all.

In addition:
1. Most jobs depend on your grad school, not your undergrad. I've known many, many people (not a handful) who have gotten into prestigious grad schools from mediocre undergrad (me included). It really depends on how you do in your undergrad. Many grad schools search for a diverse student body--they really, really don't want an entire med school made up of Yale and Harvard undergrads.
It's a big world out there and there are plenty of extremely bright, ambitious young people who
a) couldn't afford an Ivy
b) weren't positioned in high school to get into one (didn't have the support system to help them)
c) matured in college and proved their worth there.
d) were simply vastly more impressive than their mediocre Ivy counterparts.

Trust me, grad schools absolutely are NOT impressed by Ivies, just for the sake of 'Ivies.' They are far more impressed by research, recommendations, work done, etc.

2. College is a life transforming event. IT's very very important to find a place that will raise you up and in which you can raise others. Going to an Ivy just because you want to make a ton of money on Wall street so that you can buy a big house and thump your chest is one route, I suppose. If that's your cup of tea, you'll find many people just like you who define themselves purely by externals. Some will wake up one day and wonder why they've been doing what they've been doing. But other people define themselves by internals--how much they give joy, how much they contribute to society or themselves, how much they achieve excellence and surround themselves with excellence, in art, in helping others, in surrounding themselves with a loving family or community, etc. And for those whose goal it is to earn money, many don't need an Ivy to make it happen.

3. Literally, the ONLY people I've EVER known who have swooned over Ivies are people who have gone to Ivies themselves (undergrad). Ever wonder how the Ivies make so much money? Could it be by honing in on a gullible, insecure customer base such as yourself, who honestly believe their propaganda? People who WANT to go to an IVy because it's for them--because of the community of learning, the students, the profs, etc.--these people will get so much more out of an Ivy than those who go to one because they want to enter the gilt doors of Wall Street. And if you want to make some dough, there are MANY MANY paths open to you other than an Ivy. I know many restaurant and small business owners who went to state colleges (or no college) and are earning a half million.

Creekland

This has been my experience as well - for the undergraduate level. For graduate school, one wants the best in their future area of expertise. It may be an Ivy, it may not. It depends on who's teaching/researching and where. Then too, not everyone needs graduate school. Many people do just fine without it. It all depends on their selected field of choice.

Nonetheless, I think you're beating a dead horse trying to convince Phear of this fact. He's fully convinced his life is ruined because he didn't select an Ivy for undergrad. Everyone needs a scapegoat for the blame I suppose.

phear_me

Creekland,

When did this become about ME personally and not about the argument at hand? Why, with a degree from MIT and a lucrative career doing exactly what I want to do in my chosen field, would you imagine that I need to compensate for anything? I expect something better than this trite ad hominem. Not only is such an approach utterly devoid of academic rigor, but it's disgraceful to those who hold the beliefs we all claim to cherish.

hoveringmom,

Your entire conception of my argument, and thus your list of fallacies, is mistaken. You continue to do "the Christian thing" and make arguments against why power/money are not to be strived for and continue to ignore the fact that I have continued (to no avail) to try and help you understand that in my argument I used those things are proxies for success in an effort to use an objective argument. I will try to explain it to you again:

Let us imagine that one has no ambition to make any more money then they need to simply sustain themselves meagerly. Let us also imagine that this person wishes to become a software engineer and write code that will help hospitals more effectively share information in ways not yet imagined and millions of lives will be saved as a result. And, let us also imagine that, alas, this person succeeds! Then what happens? Their genius is recognized and they become a highly influential person in their field (power) and their software is purchased for large sums of money. Ah Ha!, you say. What if our protagonist gives the software away for free? Well, then firms bid out for this persons consulting and to have them sit on the board (money) to ensure the proper dissemination of their software. Now, maybe they give all of this money away ... but it is still their money to give away never-the-less. Thus, their success, causally, generates power and money. It's the natural result of excellence in a capitalistic society.

You continue to conflate the proxy of excellence I generated with a desire for or intention to achieve the causal results if you want to, but until you accept that the argument that I am making and not the one that is easy for you to argue against (straw man fallacy) there's nothing more to be said. I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you, but you seem insistent on fighting that very weak straw man.

To your points regarding graduate school, less than 10% of Americans hold a graduate/professional degree. That number drops dramatically if you count graduate degrees from top schools. Simply saying, "I'll go to a podunk university and then Harvard graduate school afterward" doesn't make much sense to me. Graduate programs at top universities are exponentially more competitive than their respective undergraduate programs. It sure seems like a big gamble to me.

Finally, you simply declare and presume that the sole measure of myself is external and I have no internal measures. Pardon me for being so blunt, but you don't have a damn clue about my motivations or desires and couldn't be more wrong.

At the end of the day, I am simply trying to make people aware of the choice they are making in choosing a Christian university. Many top firms across industries (Google, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, NASA, etc.) will only recruit at top 10, or in some cases top 3, firms. Certainly experience is what matters in terms of job progression, but the thing that people with "lower" aims in life fail to understand is that many upper echelon jobs REQUIRE EXPERIENCE THAT CAN ONLY BE GAINED BY THOSE WHO ATTEND SCHOOLS WHERE THAT EXPERIENCE CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH ON CAMPUS RECRUITING. It's like saying, "It doesn't matter what school you went to, but we look for people who have previous experience at the top 3 engineering firms" and then finding out that the top through engineering firms only hire from their pool of summer associates, which is only recruited from Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Cal Tech, Harvey Mudd, and MIT. Can you just go anywhere and then hope to get into a top graduate program? Absolutely. And that can work - heck - it worked for me. But the odds of that happening are very low - I can't count the number of 4.5 GPA's in highschool that turned into 3.2 GPA's in college and the MCAT, LSAT, GMAT etc. are much harder, proportionally, than the SAT.

Of course college is about the experience and of course that should be weighed in to the decision. I'm not denying that (and have stated as much already, you're clearly not carefully reading my posts or else you simply don't care to directly address my argument). I am simply postulating that (and forget the money, since you're so hung up on that one component of my argument) that the CHOICES and OPPORTUNITIES within a chosen career can become very limited once one intentionally closes those doors. There are a lot of people who hate the idea of being limited in their future endeavors and so rail against the idea that the Ivy League is overrated and doesn't matter etc. etc. Meanwhile, take a look at wall st, the supreme court, and all of the PhD's at top universities and look at where they went to school.

Sure, many entrepreneurs don't have top college degrees, and if someone is intent on becoming an entrepreneur then the Ivy league becomes much less advantageous (although the connections to VC and consulting firms would be huge). But forget about the money, the on campus recruiting and resume value add open doors that remain locked for students from other universities. Everyone on this forum can stand up and shake their fist at me all day, but you can no more change the truth of that reality that can a lunatic put out the sun by scribbling "darkness" on his cell wall.

Creekland

One need only read your posts to determine the answer to the first question. As for the second, beats me, but seems obvious - again - from your writings.

Then our question. Why do you continue to insist that anyone with 'ability' must enter the rat race in some way or form in order to be successful? It may be one path - one you prefer. It may just as well NOT be a path for many others. My oldest will likely be quite successful doing micro-enterprise in some third world country. My middle son will likely be quite successful in medical research. My youngest - at this point - would probably make a top notch national park ranger or biological researcher. Considering he's in 8th grade, we have some time finding his niche.

None need an Ivy league (or similar) education for undergrad to success with their preferences. They will all go to a school that is very good for their major - not podunk u. I will do careful research to find options for them to consider and we will visit those that make our cut to then find the best fit.

Then too - have you looked at Biola's stats since you continue to say they are top of the top in Christian education?

SAT Critical Reading: 500 - 620
SAT Math: 490 - 620
SAT Writing: 500 - 610
ACT Composite: 21 - 26

By MY standards they are incredibly low - esp considering 25% of the students fall below their low scores.

In contrast, Covenant - where my oldest is likely to go since it appears to be superb IN his major has these:

SAT Critical Reading: 520 - 650
SAT Math: 510 - 620
SAT Writing: 510 - 640
ACT Composite: 22 - 28

It's not a huge difference, but nonetheless, better.

And a truly top Christian school (overall) like GCC has these:

SAT Critical Reading: 570 - 700
SAT Math: 580 - 690
SAT Writing: - -
ACT Composite: 26 - 30

Biola may indeed be a good Christian school and perfect for its students. However, it doesn't match your suggestion of always going with the top of the top. Even their 'honors' program that you mentioned - with an 1800 minimum requirement to get in - doesn't match that of other schools. It's just an average of 600 on each of the three segments.

So, if you consider Biola one of the best, you might want to open your eyes to realize there are other 'bests' out there that fit other students' needs - and all likely have the capability to produce successful adults - maybe not by your definition (though I bet they could), but most of us have a wider definition of success.

My suggestion - to all - again - is to find a really good school within one's desired major and with stats that match the student's ability. Checking with multiple people already working in the field of choice is a great way to find these schools, but forums and searches can also provide some names to check out. Then visit the school, google the school, talk with anyone related to the school. Look for good and bad and consider the source for each. In many cases an expensive school is NOT a necessity nor the best option. For some it might be. At that point, it's 'to each their own.'

Creekland

Since this post was about Baylor... I should have added their stats to the comparison. Here they are:

SAT Critical Reading: 540 - 650
SAT Math: 560 - 660
SAT Writing: 530 - 630
ACT Composite: 23 - 28

Beats Biola - and is definitely still on our radar for my middle son - though he would be in their top 25% of students. Considering he wants medical research, I suspect many of his peers (were he to go there) would also be in the top 25%.