<p>Lookingforward,</p>
<p>Please reread #557 before jumping all over it, particularly the part about “small group of employers”, and “some consulting and finance companies”…</p>
<p>If post graduation employment is a consideration, there really is a Tier 1 for colleges</p>
<p>A small number of employers for a small set of fields.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fixed it for you. </p>
<p>However, if post graduation employment at the umpteen other thousand types of companies is a consideration, it matters less. Investment banking and management consulting are just two of many professions one could enter. They aren’t “better” or more rewarding than other fields. They’re just two of many.</p>
<p>Look, if I said “Northwestern is the very best college ever!” and you asked me for proof and I said, “Look, because their theatre grads do very well in Hollywood and on Broadway!” you’d say (and rightly so) - but who cares, if you’re not interested in being a theater major or working in Hollywood or on Broadway?</p>
<p>Well, it works the exact same way when it comes to consulting and finance companies. Yes, Ivy (etc) grads do very well for consulting and finance - but who cares, if you’re not interested in doing either of those things?</p>
<p>You can’t use either to prove one college is “better” than another. What’s relevant is the college fits the person’s stated needs / goals / objectives, not that you decree that a certain major or job is uniformly better across the board.</p>
<p>poetgrl,</p>
<p>What you say might be true for investment banking, but there is more to finance than this. Some of the finance jobs explicitly do <em>not want</em> MBAs, but more STEM (particularly EM) focused undergrad through PhD. </p>
<p>There is also much more to consulting than Bain, McKinsey etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College, especially a 4-year BA program, is for smart people, with high “scholastic aptitude”, not for people who “struggle in reading and writing”. They are not bad people, but they are not college material.</p>
<p>hebegebe-- absolutely. but if you are a quant from MIT or a quant from UMich undergrad, you can still model, and you will still have to become a grad quant, if you want to advance.</p>
<p>And, places like Deloitte hire from GASP, University of Illinois …wait for it… Chicago. They hire from all sorts of state schools, as do many.</p>
<p>All I’m trying to say is that if you want your undergrad to be “vocational” anyway, then why all the elitist SAT talk? It’s just vocational school. </p>
<p>All that said, let me tell you that when it comes April first and the students feel like they were ripped off and will not survive the loss, frankly due to so much parental misinformation, I will be very compassionate and let them whine… for a bit. They were misled. As adults, though, we have a responsibility to diseminate accurate information.</p>
<p>There is no tier of eight schools, except to the few people who lack the critical thinking and research skills to actually look at the facts. Top tier means getting an outstanding education that prepares one for the challenges of a rapidly changing world. Top tier means OPPORTUNITY. Top tier includes Northwestern and Duke and Carnegie Mellon, among others, along with many state flagships and LACs. “Top tier” is not the same as “highest status,” but some people here mistakenly conflate the two.</p>
<p>People like this insist that their kids always be surrounded by others like them. They have been fighting for this since they were born. Now, as their kids approach college, they express faux concern for others–often but not always minorities–who might be “mismatched” at a top school. That is their way of saying “these people don’t belong in class with my kids.” The sad truth is that they honestly believe their kids have nothing to learn from students with SAT scores 100 or 200 points lower than their own. They want the totality of their own kids’ experience to count in college admissions, but they refuse to accept that other kids have more to offer than a standardized test score. How sad that for all their concern for “education,” they seem to understand so little about life.</p>
<p>I have to wonder how many think their HYP kids might lose a shot at IB/finance jobs…because some underqualified minority or nepotism case stole their spot. Yo. Or, former star athlete.</p>
<p>A parent overly concerned with getting their kids into HYP is bad enough, but I would hope nobody would be nutty enough to want to dictate their career for them too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sadly, the students who believe that they were ripped off and their spot stolen carry that bias to school come fall. How can they not, their parents have ingrained it into them that they are <em>only</em> at Emory instead of HYP because of the URM that stole their spot. It would only be natural that the student would then look at the URM’s at Emory and think they are only there due to AA, and they stole somebody elses spot. Only when the URM “proves” themself to be equal in the classroom does the bias hopefully subside.</p>
<p>Although my URM D’s stats were in the top 25th% at her top LAC, she knew that there were certain students that looked at her as if her admission were somehow not as worthy as theirs, and no she wasn’t being paranoid. I blame the parents for this BTW, not the students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s completely arbitrary. Obviously whoever used the phrase “top tier” meant “superelite status.” So I’m not sure usage of that phrase justifies the rest of your rant.</p>
<p>"Although my URM D’s stats were in the top 25th% at her top LAC, she knew that there were certain students that looked at her as if her admission were somehow not as worthy as theirs, and no she wasn’t being paranoid. "</p>
<p>I don’t doubt your daughter’s assessments were true. But I think your blame may be misplaced.</p>
<p>This is the true corrosive effect of AA. It diminishes the accomplishments of those who earned it on their merits vs. those placed there based upon race. The reality is the doubt may continue to follow her in her career until she proves to each new group that she earned her place.</p>
<p>I don’t think that many people think about AA except when threads like this come up, or at least the high performers rarely think about it. Everyone knows about it and it’s not a surprise. However, if you are going to argue that it’s fair on an individual basis, and then invoke various lines-of-thought to denigrate the achievement of so-called “priveleged” high-performers in order for that argument to hold water, that is where I object. </p>
<p>For the record, I’m not sure if I would change AA if I had the power to change it. I wouldn’t introduce it at a place which didn’t have it (e.g., Caltech,) but it would do a lot of damage to suddenly take it away at a university.</p>
<p>GA2012MOM, by “certain students,” you mean people like this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is from Beliavsky on another thread. Seems that despite his DEMONSTRATED superiority he feels the need to spend a lot of time reminding the world how inferior non-white or non-Asian people are.</p>
<p>Hispanic students ACT scores </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/Hispanic.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/Hispanic.pdf</a></p>
<p>There are 5488 hispanics scoring a 30 or above on the ACT. I’m not even including Collegeboard.org SAT scores. As you can see there are PLENTY of students within the range for these top schools. I just would like to know why there are so many claims that hispanics don’t have these scores.</p>
<p>^ (post #576)</p>
<p>Well I would never use those words. On the other hand, you can’t accuse him of being one of those people that are bitter because they were rejected by HYPSM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is another problem of AA. The stigma. Unless the observer has full information about the student in question, it is only rational to think like this:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>With probability p the person was admitted because he/she was qualified.</p></li>
<li><p>With probability (1-p) the person was admitted based on racial preferences.</p></li>
<li><p>Absent information about the “true” qualifications of the person, how should you compute the probability that the person is qualified? Answer: p.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, the only way to completely eliminate the stigma is to have p -> 1 (or alternatively, 1-p -> 0 ). </p>
<p>Notice that this does not mean that no URM should be admitted. What this means is that the stigma will be eliminated only when URMs are admitted based on merit (not on racial preferences).</p>
<p>This is not an issue that is “ingrained” on the students. This is simply a probabilistic issue.</p>
<p>It’s weird how the ACT has public data for hispanics and not for african americans. :/</p>
<p>No responses to the information I posted?</p>