These two statements are really the foundational questions of whether or not there is a problem at all. If all schools offer the same outcomes, no one should be complaining about anything. Every applicant can get in somewhere.
People keep posting articles (often times, from accomplished experts) saying that attending an IvyPlus school really matters. This is followed up by a surge of posters who say it doesnāt matter.
My sense is that many of those successful people arenāt sending kids to elite schools for reasons of career outcomes or ROI, but rather because elite schools are luxury goods that connote status in at least two ways. For the mega-wealthy, getting oneās kid into, say, Harvard via massive donations is itself a status symbol, as the club of folks who can do that is very small. For everyone else, elite school attendance is often viewed by society, for better or worse, as a third-party validation of the studentās intelligence. (Those of us here on CC understand that thereās so much more to admissions - hooks and institutional priorities and so on - but most people donāt perceive that complexity.) So essentially everyone now knows how smart your kid is without you having to make a big deal of it. And, the kid feels like all the hard work in HS was worth it, which is gratifying for everyone involved.
In short, I think the answer is yes it matters. But how much it matters is dependent on the individual and the career chosen. Another topic which isnāt directly addressed is exclusivity and social prestige. That also motivates a lot of people to attend those schools.
So, in your opinion, at best, the benefit of attending a highly selective college/university is all about how it is individually perceived. If you are correct, we need to leave all colleges and universities alone, allow them to admit people however they want, and work to get applicants (and their families) to alter their perceptions about their college choices.
That is not my opinion.
I know a lot of rich people who could not fathom sending their kid to an ivy type school. They want their daughters to " marry up", not date a bunch of brilliant first gen guys whose parents own a dry cleaning store. They want their sons to get a respectable gpa majoring in " business" and then get a job where you take clients to dinner and play golf. Nobody majors in " business" at Yale anyway.
SMU, Villanova, Denison, Fairfieldā¦ schools like this. It used to be Lehigh but then they got serious and too academic and too much work. Trinity is okā¦but they donāt like the neighborhood.
You guys make it seem like there are no solid b students anymore whose parents have money. These kids are at prep schools, privates, publics in fancy neighborhoods. And the parents know they arenāt ivy material and donāt want them there. Some of these rich folks never went to college themselvesā¦they started working at an auto dealership after high school and now own 30 dealers across 6 states. Bust your butt to become a pediatrician for 250k per year after expenses and malpractice insurance? No thanks. Their kid can make twice that SELLING insurance with just a BA from Lake Forest, with a country club lifestyle and nobody vomiting on you.
Not as an official undergraduate majorā¦ but how many are basically preparing for investment banking or management consulting?
An abundance of truisms in your post!
Yep.
Chucklingā¦.This is so true.
Yes and yes!
So what about the highly vaunted alumni networks and opportunities for valuable ECās and internships and on campus recruitment that the Ivy+ boast?
At Yale? Only about 30%
My mistake. What then did you mean by, āhow much it matters is dependent on the individualā if not āthe benefit of attending a highly selective college/university is all about how it is individually perceived.ā
Perfect! Since in your experience rich people donāt want to send their kids to Ivys anyway, that is all the more reason to remove admission advantages for the rich-- no more niche sports recruiting, donors lists, private āfeederā schools. The Ivys will no longer try to limit the numbers of the -ahem- type of student whose parents own a dry cleaning store. Sounds good to me!
I was trying to say that everything depends on the individual and the chosen career path taken. It seems to matter a lot more for the college student aspiring to become a law professor or partner at a white-shoe firm than one aspiring to be a writer, computer scientist, or an accountant.
What any given person gets out of their college experience (regardless of whether or not it is an āeliteā school) is up to that individual. There are failures that went to Harvard and successful people that went to Old State U. Of course, attending an Ivy brings benefits - a strong network, prestigious reputation and an excellent education - but attending one is not the only way to be successful. And thatās a good thing because there are many more excellent students than seats at prestigious schools. An Ivy League education being worthwhile and success being possible from many schools are not mutually exclusive.
I didnāt say that all schools created the same outcomes, what I said was you donāt need to go to a āeliteā school to have success in life. The individual drives the outcome, not where they went to school. There is talent everywhere. Sure the network effect is a big plus at top 20 schools, but but I know plenty of successful people in Finance who did not go to Top 20 schools and I would take a top of class kid from a second tier school from a bottom of the class elite school anyday.
Unless you are a quant, most of the senior folks at IBanks and PE Shops actually went to LACās (Ted Pick at MS-Middlebury, David Solomon at GS-Hamilton) or studied Humanities/LA not Finance at Universities. Anyone can learn how to use a spreadsheet, but the best leaders and investors are well rounded critical thinkers with strong people skills. I went to Gettysburg College, and we have tons of successful alums in Finance.
As a former low-income/pell grant (white) kid, I am glad Med School was not this slanted toward what the article implies: inherited wealth. I had peers from many different schools at Duke Med (though to be honest the majority were from T30s/topLACs: my "small study group"of randomly sorted first years were undergrads from Harvard, Morehouse, Penn, Amherst x2, Berkeley, Duke x2, Wake, UNC), but at least a couple of them including Harvard kid were low income like me, and there was zero benefit or difference for kids from ivy-plus undergrad vs not, once we were there. In getting there? There could have been. Or maybe it was all MCAT scores. Who knows. But med school does not have the class and political layers that law school seems to have based on this article. The truth is that none of these professional-school ratios shed light on whether or not the undergrad holistic process is broken.
I believe medical school deans push for greater diversity than law schools. As you probably know, there is a strong emphasis that physicians should better match the backgrounds of the patients they are treating because it results in better patient care and satisfaction.