HappyAlumnus…a year almost ago, you started a very similiar thread about prestige law schools. Really what is your hunt here?
It’s the same worshipful mentality that you see amongst the immigrants who perseverate on a handful of schools as though they are the meaning of life. OMG-Goldman Sachs or I’ll just die isn’t appreciably different from OMG-Harvard or I’ll just die. Very scarcity-oriented and fearful.
" So for an undecided student, attending an elite school will maximize his chances of ending up in a good dept. no matter what major he settles "
Fully agree. That’s a compelling reason to go to an elite school. About the EDUCATION.
There are lots of good departments at many less than elite schools as well. Just saying!
“Come on now guys… this is just getting silly now. The VAST majority of physics/engineers are not going to consider Bain or Goldman Sachs prime companies to work for. If you really think otherwise, then I would strongly encourage you to step outside and get some fresh air.”
That’s what I thought too. But realistically, the vast majority of them don’t have the chance either. They didn’t go to the right schools.
This is what that other guy had to say about it:
“Take MIT as a prime example. I think we can all agree that the overwhelming majority of incoming MIT students are passionate about science and technology - indeed, it would be rather foolish to attend MIT if you didn’t have such passion, because you may not even graduate because you won’t pass the GIR’s. Yet the provocative yet undeniable truth is that, before the recession, nearly half of all MIT graduates who entered the workforce took jobs not in science or tech, but rather in consulting or finance. To some extent, I can understand why that might happen with Sloan or economics majors - yet even so, one might expect more Sloan students to take jobs in tech management/marketing, or econ students to take jobs with quant think-tanks or government agencies. Yet Sloan and econ majors represent only a small minority of MIT undergrads: the vast majority of them are engineering and hard science majors, yet many of them end up in consulting or banking.”
When I pointed out how unique MIT is:
"
"One can apply the economics principle of revealed preference. I think we can all agree that MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the country. Yet as can be seen from the MIT career surveys, a significant fraction of MIT engineering students take jobs in consulting/banking. Hence, those MIT engineers have revealed their preference for what they really want to do.
I would then argue that MIT engineers are not substantially different from engineers at other schools. That is to say, if MIT engineers demonstrated revealed preference for consulting/banking, then I would argue that many engineers at other schools most likely also prefer to go to consulting/banking. Whether they actually receive their preferred choice is a different question. I’m just talking about what their preference is. For example, I’m sure that even at MIT, many of the engineers there wanted to go to consulting/banking but didn’t get an offer, so they ended up taking engineering jobs as their ‘second choice’ or ‘safety choice’.
In fact, I think a case could be made that MIT engineers are more committed to engineering than the average engineer. After all, MIT is arguably the best engineering school in the world and therefore attracts the a very high class of engineering employers and the most committed engineering students. I would certainly say that a given MIT engineering student is probably more committed to the engineernig lifestyle than, say, a given Fresno State engineering student. Yet despite all that, a significant fraction of MIT engineering students take consulting/banking jobs. So if even they are revealing their preference for non-engineering jobs, I would imagine that, if anything, it would be even more so at the lesser engineering schools."
I usually disagree with @pizzagirl but I think she is doing a fantastic job on this thread. The world does not revolve around finance and banking
The world doesn’t revolve around living and working in NYC either.
@monydad the world does not revolve around one issue. So what if they “don’t have a chance”? My son is extremely gifted in math and physics. If he was informed that his choice of school meant he didn’t stand a chance in getting into finance, his response would be, “That’s fine. I’m not interested anyway.” He wants to study physics. The business finance world holds zero appeal to him. The cosmos, otoh, that is what inspires him.
This thread is bizarre. It seems like life goals defined by a very narrow prism are the only real ones to exist and everyone else denies that prism due to sour grapes. ??? The real world is far more interesting.
I think it’s more likely the consulting/banking is the short-term non-career option. Harvard’s senior survey indicates approximate ~1/3 of students are going to work in finance or consulting after graduating. That’s quite a large portion of the class. However, the same survey indicates only ~6% plan to go in to finance or consulting as a career. The article at http://www.vox.com/2014/5/15/5720596/how-wall-street-recruits-so-many-insecure-ivy-league-grads offers an explanation for this discrepancy stating:
.
The senior survey also mentions recruited athletes are 3x more likely to be economics majors than the overall class, so if you do not consider recruited athletes, you’ll likely find an even smaller portion than the listed 6% planning to go in to finance/consulting as a career.
@romanigypsyeyes “If some want to believe that it’s x company or bust, so be it. Seems like a very unhappy way to live one’s life but to each his/her own.”
I continue to struggle to understand this. People continue to argue with what they think I mean, but not what I am saying.
The point I am making are that there are advantages in attending a top college that go well beyond the name/brand itself. That if you have the opportunity to go to a better college, in most (but not all) cases, it is a good idea to take it.
For example, @romanigypesyeyes, if someone has been accepted to the University of Michigan, and Central Michigan University, I am saying that the idea that the only benefit will be the UofM brand is wrong. Attending The University of Michigan presents opportunities and benefits that go well beyond the name.
Having said that, it does not mean that if you attend Central Michigan, you are a failure and can never be successful. There are many very successful graduates from Central Michigan. However, I would be willing to bet that by most criteria you might establish, that a higher percentage of Michigan graduates are successful. Part of the difference is driven by the capabilities of the students when they arrive at the school, but part of it is also driven by the opportunities that the better school presents to get a better education and better experiences.
This does not mean that the better school is always the best one to choose. That will depend a lot on the individual student. There are a lot of reasons why the lower ranked school may be better for individual students.
I know that some posters would like to argue that the best school is the least expensive school regardless of the quality of the school, and that they are not giving up anything by doing so. In some situations and majors, that may well be true, but in many cases they are giving up opportunities, but don’t want to admit it.
I am also saying that the differences in schools at you move down the rankings is gradual. To me that means that when you are choosing between similarly ranked schools, say University of Michigan, Cal Berkeley, and UVA, that the ranking difference are not significant. If my daughter were accepted into these three schools, I would not challenge any decision she might make. However if she were to admitted to these three schools and Central Michigan, and she wanted to attend Central, I would really want to be convinced in a lot of detail that that was actually the best decision.
Is what I am suggesting really that controversial?
I chose Michigan State University over University of Michigan so I’m probably not the best person to answer your questions 
By the way, my response had nothing to do with universities per se. It was specifically directed to the poster(s) who seems obsessed with the idea that working for x company is the be-all, end-all in life. That line of thinking seems so foreign to me that I can’t even wrap my mind around it.
Amen @Much2learn !
My niece turned down MIT for undergrad. My niece went to MIT for grad school. She hated the place. Wasn’t the best place for her. She is working on the best coast now.
She has no interest in finance.
“not revolve around one issue. So what if they “don’t have a chance”? My son is extremely gifted in math and physics. If he was informed that his choice of school meant he didn’t stand a chance in getting into finance, his response would be, “That’s fine. I’m not interested anyway.” He wants to study physics. The business finance world holds zero appeal to him. The cosmos, otoh, that is what inspires him.”
Exactly.
In my world, there are a lot of “best and brightest” who go to work for media / marketing / advertising / communications companies. They’re just as smart as the folks who go into finance – and believe it or not, they do lots of complicated intellectual stuff with smart peers / coworkers – and they couldn’t care less whether or not their schools enable them to get into banking. Good for their friends who are interested, but their paths are just as good for them. And, of course, none of those companies are particularly “impressed” by a banking internship, despite the assumption that they are or should be. I just think some people don’t get out much, frankly. Big world out there, banking’s a necessary part of it but only one part. A complete lack of understanding that figuring out how to finance something doesn’t mean diddly squat if there aren’t actual people making the goods and services that create the value.
@romanigypsyeyes “I chose Michigan State University over University of Michigan so I’m probably not the best person to answer your questions ;)”
I went to MSU also. lol. I was using Michigan as an example because for some reason I thought you are at Michigan now. Spartans in the Elite Eight! Go State!
I just think that many are taking things out of context, and disputing statements that I did not make. I did not at all suggest that what matters is working for a particular company.
I find the mention of engineering very amusing considering at many hardcore engineering/CS firms I know of…including ones where relatives/family friends are in a position to recruit/hire college graduates, most of the Ivies wouldn’t be considered “elite” in their field. One of those relatives is himself, an Ivy engineering graduate(Columbia SEAS).
In fact, many schools not considered “elite” by some here on CC and elsewhere would be strongly preferred as they are considered much more elite in their field than most of the Ivies. A few examples are UIUC, UW-Seattle, Gtech*, RPI, Harvey Mudd, etc.
- There was a poster on another thread whose post indicated he/she didn't know Gtech is actually considered an elite school of choice among hardcore engineering/tech recruiters....and not only in the Southeast.
Actually if you are a computer engineer - Wall Street is not a bad place to work. Wall Street runs on technology. IT departments of these firms have access to the latest technology and to the high-level support from vendors. The most technically rewarding work I ever did was in the R&D department of an investment bank.
M2L, I guess I’m confused as to why you singled me out to respond to. To be honest, I haven’t even read most of your posts (I’ve skimmed probably the last 20 or so pages because I’m not keeping up)- I am responding to "Happy"Alumnus.
So now we come to the crux of the matter-the only reason you don’t work at x and y is because you can’t get a job there, not because you have no interest in working there. No one in their right mind wouldn’t want to live and work here, and anyone who doesn’t isn’t being honest about the fact that they are actually mediocre and average. And provincial.
Some people seem really really invested in making sure it’s clear that they are the cream of the crop and that everyone else wishes to be in their shoes.
The “right schools”?? lol… again, you assume the vast majority of people desire to work for those “right” companies, which is simply not true.
@Pizzagirl You seem fixating on the finance part, but as we continue to peel this onion, I’m seeing that the elitism issue is much more extensive than that. It’s the overarching idea that everyone, regardless of personal differences/interests, should strive for one goal - engineers, scientists, linguists - everyone should strive to get into a top 10 school, and everyone should strive to work for a few exclusive companies.
I would argue that there are many great schools (in fact most of the non-elite ones are far more interesting, IMO, than anything in the top 10 list) even within the top 200 ranking. New Mexico Tech is one such example… inexpensive, produces a lot of PhD’s, excellent connections with the national labs in New Mexico (which, quite honestly, sound much more appealing to me than a finance job in NYC), and excellent weather year-round. Even lower ranked schools like U of Arizona have one of the best optical science programs in the world… making lenses/mirrors for some of the most “prestigious” telescopes on the planet.
Lots of great options out there for motivated hard working students.