<p>I was thinking today… A lot of people discount prestige and say it is not worth anything. I kind of used to be like that, but I think prestige is (though not as important as some other factors) a part of the process too.</p>
<p>I was reading this on the college forums “prestige is not worth it” and so on. Basically that thing that your high school teacher tells you when you get rejected at your ivy… Is this so? I am not fully taking the side of “omg HAHVAHD” here, but I am curious. </p>
<p>Clearly, on boards like CC (filled with intrinsic learners) the only schools that get attention at prestigious ones. Do not take me wrongly, in the BS scene just because a school is not in HEADS GCM does not mean it is any worse. It struck me that either way having a degree from Harvard is simple better than one from University of Guam. The variable in quality of degree is not in the education received, or anything that the university can actively change. In boarding schools, heads gcm have been here for years and hence they have gleaned a reputation. In colleges, prestige clearly makes a difference in career prospects…</p>
<p>So what do you think, is prestige as useless as people make it seem? I, personally, believe that prestigious schools are prestigious for a reason. Tell me one super prestigious school that does not provide a good education… Does this make it better than another school, though? I am not sure of that… Clearly an employer would like Harvardians a little more, no? Look at huge consulting firms like McKinsey, they recruit from places like ivies… </p>
<p>I think I understand the point you are getting at. The prestige of attending an institution or bearing a degree from that institution has a value above and beyond the quality of the education that the institution provides. The quality at Guam may be the same or better than at Harvard, but from Harvard you derive the prestige, and hence the degree is more valuable.</p>
<p>And you suggest that from prestige there follows ECONOMIC VALUE. Because Mckinsey recruits people with prestigious degrees and educational pedigrees, then you can assign ECONOMIC VALUE to prestige.</p>
<p>If I am correct in my interpretation of what you suggest, then I think that you are arguing that PRESTIGE IS REALLY A FACADE, in a sense like a label, and that the real substance is what lies behind it.</p>
<p>Correct. Prestige is a facade with real substance behind it. In reality, though, the prestigious ones are the good ones. Few schools are super good and not prestigious, the economic value can be contested, however, that prestige is expensive.</p>
<p>I understood that you meant that prestige is a facade that Mckinsey is willing to pay for. But that it is just that: A FACADE. The real substance is independent of the facade. Real substance can exist and stand alone, without the facade that Mckinsey is willing to pay for. Hence your metaphor about GUAM, where the education may be as good as at Harvard. If you go there, you get the same education, but you miss out on the prestige, and Mckinsey is unwilling to pay for you, even though behind the facade YOU ARE EVERY BIT AS GOOD.</p>
<p>Maybe I misspoke. It is not a facade, in all senses of the word. Such prestige (in some ways) may make the school a better place in terms of recourses (fa). I agree with you but I have a lack of words for what it is. </p>
<p>It makes you better off, not a better person? Well, CC is def not as good as Harvard. I think by the time you get into the league of schools which parallel Harvard (solely because they have so much recourses) you will be countering with schools that are super prestigious.</p>
<p>the point is, the University of Guam probably isn’t as good, simply because is is so underrepresented. There likely aren’t many super high quality universities with no prestige. LSMSA may offer just as good an education as Exeter, but very few people have heard of it and so their student body is likely much less diverse, etc.</p>
<p>What’s LSMSA? Your point is proven… HEADS GCM + RL + Hopkins + Thomas Jefferson and a few others are the ones that are well known. Hence they get a bunch of “recourses”.</p>
<p>I Was a retained executive search exec (CEO,COO, Board Members) in another life. If you PM me I can tell you what the big 5 thought of the prestige college candidates.</p>
<p>“A lot of people discount prestige and say it is not worth anything”</p>
<p>I think very few, if anyone, will say it is not worth anything. It’s worth something, the question is how important is it. That will vary from person to person.</p>
<p>Personally I feel it’s worth very little when put up against other factors used to choose a school such as fit, facilities, classes or athletic programs of interest. </p>
<p>There are as many Prestige school grads unemployed in NYC this Spring as any other college grads. The rehires will happen fastest for those with the best track record out of school and not where they went.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that Sarum means best track record out of school as in best track record of things after school - the people with the best experience and skills, not necessarily the people with the best grades. So, no, it’s not really like saying that because I don’t think Sarum’s talking about best track record prestige wise and grade wise.</p>
<p>Exactly, it’s what you have done after you graduate. In the real world, grades are not very relevant, it’s what you do with your newfound knowledge and experience.</p>
<p>My take on this is that ideally you should pick a best fit among a group of the most prestigious schools, say some well received top tier ones. Prestige is there for a reason and we shouldn’t discout it like it means nothing. On the other hand, if you clearly see a good fit in a less pretigious school, choosing a school you don’t feel comfortable in just becaue of its big name is senseless.</p>
<p>^Exactly, I agree. ie., I am sure Andover is more prestigious than Milton, but they are both so extremely prestigious that I may chose Milton based on fit. or vice versa…</p>