VLP, congrats on your kid going to U Chicago. What a terrific school! Seems like your family already won the elite admissions game! (For all intents and purposes, U Chicago = Harvard. Seriously. It’s your kid who will make the difference, not the school.)
I also hope your kid gets to explore many different areas of interest while he’s there - not just be focused on an eventual PE career. If he winds up there, great, but I hope there’s more to the U Chicago experience than that.
@Pizzagirl thank you dear. Very nice of you to say that. Truly appreciate it. I also want to assure you that I have no malice here. I viewed this community as a place where intelligent informed people engage in conversation, sometimes disagree and learn from each other. If I didn’t, I would just keep my opinion to myself without getting the opportunity to be challenged and learn from others.
@JHS For a few years now, Harvard and Princeton in particular, among other elite colleges, have been criticized by some for sending too many of their graduates to finance and management consulting. (And you may also see some of the other STEM talents moving on to big name high tech companies in SV). I suppose it’s a phenomenon in this day and age, that success is at least partially measured by financial well-being, and the smarted college graduates do “follow the money” too. But, you may know better about this. Factoring the change in size of the finance and management consulting industries, are graduates from H and P nowadays more likely to go on to those industries than in old days? We know these colleges were traditionally the country club for the rich and the powerful, and a pathway for the poorer to reach to the upper society.The industries they get in may differ somewhat from the old days, but I suppose the essence has remained the same.
I don’t know a single person from my cohort at Harvard who ended up at one of these firms. I can’t even remember what the initials stand for, this is so not my world. It may be because the Houses were sorted a bit more by interest groups back then, but I also think Harvard really has changed for the worse in this respect. My friends became novelists, artists, heads of non-profits, a priest, a reverend, a bunch of CS guys, some scientists, one other architect, a lot of musicians and oh yes, the former governor of Massachusetts.
“We know these colleges were traditionally the country club for the rich and the powerful, and a pathway for the poorer to reach to the upper society.”
This is where I start to part ways. Working for a PE firm (etc) doesn’t get you power. It gets you money, but that’s not the same thing. No one goes “oooh, oooh, Joe Schmoe is a hedge fund manager, what an amazing person.” It’s a job. A lucrative one, but a job. My senator is powerful. My neighbor the hedge fund guy is merely wealthy. Big difference.
I find that the “upper crust” (so to speak) don’t really push their kids into those positions any more. The true upper crust have the kids who go do Teach for America or similar, work for non profits making meaningful change, go do archaeological digs in the Middle East, go become professors, etc. Way more life of the mind and give-back stuff than Wall Street. High WASP values, even if they aren’t WASPs.
“I also think Harvard really has changed for the worse in this respect. My friends became novelists, artists, heads of non-profits, a priest, a reverend, a bunch of CS guys, some scientists, one other architect, a lot of musicians and oh yes, the former governor of Massachusetts.”
I was in a specialized dual major combining math and social sciences (mine was economics, but there were a lot of political science, psychology and sociology majors too). I happened to go into business, but many of my classmates in the program became academics, worked in think tanks, etc. This program has expanded and now seems to be touted as “this will position you best for WS/finance careers so you can make the big bucks.” I think it’s a shame, too, and I dislike how it’s more pre-professional in scope than 25 years ago. IOW, I’m agreeing with mathmom, though at a different school.
Re the “Excellent Sheep” book noted above, the author may have some good points but it just reads like sour grapes to me, since he didn’t seem to have any issue with elite schools before he was denied tenure at Yale.
There were so many opportunities for those of us who graduated from college back in the day. Print journalism, science research, academia, nonprofits funded by government grants. Law school that led to security. Medical school subsidized by state funding. It’s a tough world out there for new graduates and the debt that often accompanies a college education makes it even more challenging. I suspect that those who have the option sometimes take the path of least resistance and try these high paying finance jobs. I agree that it’s a change I don’t love seeing but I don’t blame the culture of the schools.
That said, there were always Harvard grads going into finance. Plenty of them.
My dd’s bf attended Notre Dame as a legacy but only after establishing a scholarship in their name. I’m convinced that nothing gets you to the head of the line at elite schools unless you are a well endowed patron or show muscle a la Meadow Soprano’s admission to Columbia
Isn’t that exactly what we’ve been saying? To the extent there is a legacy bump, it’s nothing even remotely along the lines of guaranteed. Now, money may talk (at a certain high level) … But the money talks regardless of whether the person offering said money is an alum or not. I mean, really, do you care if the person about to hand you $50 MM is an alum or not? You’ll admit their kids anyway!
I have a sorority sister who (with her husband) donated $40 MM to our alma mater. (He owns a major league sports team.) They have a daughter, though she is not of college age yet. I think they should get X number of chits to give to whomever they want, and I’m kind of serious here.
It seems money talks louder nowadays. IIRC university presidents didn’t make many times more than professors 20 some years ago.
If most of Harvard graduates head off to finances, Harvard won’t be Harvard and many of our brightest kids will stay away from it. Holistic process should filter out the follow the money type and pick future thinkers and leaders.
Overseeing a major law school, business school, and medical school / major medical center? Overseeing millions of dollars in federal research grants? I don’t begrudge the heads of research universities high salaries. They are running something akin to a good-sized corporation and if you want talent, you have to pay competitively. I am very pleased with my alma mater’s president - I think he’s done a fantastic job on many levels. He can make seven figures, it’s ok with me. His scope of responsibilities is far broader than that of any given professor.
“If most of Harvard graduates head off to finances, Harvard won’t be Harvard and many of our brightest kids will stay away from it. .”
I don’t see that happening (the brightest kids staying away, that is).
The sample size is small, thus the results are less stable than ideal. I agree.
Not all data is of similar significance. The important thing to focus on here is the tread in grades over all years, not just their performance as sophomores and juniors. As they approach graduation, it is obvious they do worse as the courses become more advanced, despite the fact that they take “more leniently graded courses”.
These students are more privileged, so they are better prepared academically, giving them the courage to take harder courses in their first year. When they discover that they are not competitive, they start to switch big time (“large shifts”) to softer courses to protect their grades. By senior year they finally found their sweet spot by “taking more leniently graded courses”. This profile clearly signifies weaker students, in cognitive function terms, relative to their classmates. If they were to move on to graduate school, I expect their performance to drop even further.
It is also important to note that the data alone does not tell the whole story. The author was only comparing legacies to white non-legacies and not white non-hooks. Among hooked students, he has only factored out URMs and ORMs. The presence of white athletes, scions of the rich, famous and powerful etc. actually make the legacies look better than they really are.
I agree with those that claim that numbers only tell part of the story. I think this is a perfect example of that.
Given how keen you’ve always been on the “genetics explains intelligence” theme, canuckguy, it’s surprising to me that you seem to be invested in the idea that the legacies are “dumber” than their parents.
"These students are more privileged, so they are better prepared academically, giving them the courage to take harder courses in their first year. When they discover that they are not competitive, they start to switch big time (“large shifts”) to softer courses to protect their grades. "
This is such a weird interpretation of what is a normal occurrence in college – kids get exposed to areas that they weren’t exposed to in high school, and consequently change their focus. It’s a GOOD thing that people broaden their horizons. A feature, not a bug. How many kids studied art history or the classics in high school? Yay for colleges that encourage that kind of exploration, and yay for kids who engage in it.
@Pizzagirl wrote:
It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re dumber. Standards and the level of students have gone up dramatically over time. I work with a number of people whose kids either can’t get into their alma mater or struggle after they get there. The kids aren’t dumber than their parents - those parents couldn’t get into that school today either.
Not getting into a particular school, however, doesn’t necessarily mean “couldn’t have handled that particular school.” There are simply way more qualified applicants than there are spots.
There is often an assumption on CC that the list of “qualified” kids seems to magically coincide with the number of acceptances offered (or spots in the freshman class). As many of the elite schools have said over and over again, there are way more qualified students in their pools than they could ever take, and they could easily “dump” their current admitted class, select a new class from the remainder, and maintain high quality.
Fine. Let me re-phrase., and ignore admissions.
I work with a number of people who would struggle at their alma mater if they were going to school there today. Their kids could be every bit as smart as they are, and they would struggle as well.
Check your own assumptions, folks.
You won’t understand by taking one or two studies and parsing them to some nth degree. (I hope our educations gave us some critical thinking more than waving a hand and declaring, “So and so says, so…”)
Who cares about college grades A vs B? With exceptions for grad school, IB, some consulting or perhaps blossom’s employer. Etc.
For a moment, use all the smarts and set aside this hierarchical thinking. Success comes in many forms, from many personal attributes.