The really top, smartest students at Harvard Law School (at least in my day) wanted to be law professors. There were, of course, plenty who wanted to go to New York and work for the biggest firms. I tried it for a while–I really didn’t like it. Indeed, people bail out of those jobs in droves because they often aren’t much fun, and you have to work much too hard.
I think attitudes about money are an element of this conversation that is perhaps being sidestepped a bit. If your family already has some money, and you come from a comfortable background, and especially if you’re not from an immigrant family, then you may be less concerned about your financial future. In that case, you may not think it’s as important to attend an elite college, and even if you do attend one, you might major in music, or English, or environmental management, or pure math, or classics. You see your education as primarily a way of achieving personal fulfillment. If, on the other hand, you grew up with the idea of income insecurity, then you may be more likely to see your education as primarily a means of establishing financial security.
@Hunt, yes, if you already have money, you may worry less about money, but even if you care about money, you may opt for an inexpensive/free engineering education at a state school over full-pay at a private.
If anything, those who tend to care more about the brand names of schools/banks/law firms, etc. tend to be more well-off than not, in my experience.
I see the opposite. The people who are all “omg it’s gotta to be one of the Ivies or bust” are less affluent and worldly than the ones who know of a broader range of excellent schools.
I would add to Pizza’s post (I agree with her observation BTW) that it’s not just affluence per se- it’s a broader set of what we might describe as “social capital”.
I got to college and did not know what investment banking was-- and I don’t think I knew anyone who worked for a large corporation. My neighborhood was filled with teacher’s and nurses and librarians; a guy down the street owned a carpet store (he was what was known as “a businessman”) and there were other family owned businesses, medical professionals (dentists and doctors were revered) and folks in the allied health/helping professions.
College was really an eye-opener- folks with serious, multi generational money could have vague, post-graduation plans that involved teaching sailing or skiing, usually living rent free in a parental vacation home. Folks like me were hellbent on getting a “real” job (first step on the ladder) or going directly to graduate school. And we weren’t pre-professional (except for the premeds)-- I studied Classics, my friends, even the ones from modest backgrounds had degrees in humanities or in non-professionally oriented sciences. But nobody from upbringings like ours were going to bum around Europe the summer after graduation.
If a “striver” kid like me had chosen Denison or Lehigh (two colleges I had never heard of growing up, but quickly learned were Brand Name colleges at prep schools) it would have been a very uncommon choice indeed. And it wasn’t an Ivy or bust mentality at all- but certainly U Chicago (home of very famous intellectuals back then) or Rice were more obvious choices for kids leaving the New England than some of the preppy favorites. I knew kids applying to Emory- but had never heard of Franklin and Marshall, Beloit, Rhodes, etc.
Brand name was very important if you were first generation American (me) or first Gen college (many of my friends) or both. Studying something intellectual was very important- philosophy, history, etc. One of my classmates (probably the smartest woman in the class) was going directly to an RN program- people were shocked (why would someone “smart enough” to become a doctor become a nurse, without EVEN a BS?)
As a first generation American, my experience was just the opposite. Most of my relatives (also immigrants) didn’t have a clue about colleges. They believed college was important, because it was a way for their kids to find jobs and get out of the factory. They simply wanted their kids to be better off financially than they were. If someone wanted to be a nurse, that would be a great thing in my working class neighborhood. No one expected their kids to be lawyers or doctors.
For these parents, it didn’t matter if their kids went to the directional state U or the state flagship. Sure, they heard of Harvard, but they wouldn’t have known any of the other top universities or LACs, other than a few schools in the city/state. One of my friends (who was the valedictorian and one of two in my class who left the midwest to go to college) got into Vassar. I remember my mother saying that schools like that “weren’t for people like us.”
I imagine immigrants whose parents have a college/professional background might be more knowledgeable about college rankings and more concerned that their kids get educated. Also, I’m 63–when I was applying to college, there were no US News rankings. In my working class high school (large midwest city) about 60% of the kids went to college–mostly to in-state publics or a few local Catholic colleges/universities. Other than the two students I mentioned above, the only other kids who went to higher ranked schools were guys who were recruited to play football (Michigan and Notre Dame). I ended up going to Michigan, because my boyfriend was one of those guys recruited to play football and I followed him.
Bromfield- I am a little younger than you, but by the time I was graduating from HS the tide had turned with the draft and the war in Viet Nam and the percentage of kids going to college (that precious deferment) high skyrocketed from when my older siblings where at the same HS. The demographics hadn’t changed, but the attitude towards military service and the draft had changed significantly.
“If someone is selecting 103 vs 3, your argument makes sense. There are appreciable, real quality differences. Maybe even 53 vs 3. But no one who attends 9 instead of 3 is “passing up the school that will give the most benefit.” Unless we are talking about a specific program offered by that one school, it’s just all the same, and its slicing the bologna way too thin to pretend otherwise.”
No, he’s accurate.
Because you are buying prestige, not actual “real quality differences”.
And the prestige differences between the numbers in the ranking become much larger between law schools as you get closer to the top.
In addition, the closer that you are to the top, the easier the actual educational experience of the law school becomes and the less you have to actually do or actually learn.
This entire thread “Skip an elite school, and doors will close” is what happens when the law school prestige system bleeds down into the general college system.
@joanneb We both totally agree on social media, I dont have Facebook, twitter or use snapchat and I fail to see how I am missing out on life. Discussion over coffee or a bottle of wine is still superior social interaction. If face to face interaction WERE inferior, nobody here on CC would send their kids to college, you could just buy them a laptop and enroll to online U
And agree again on post about real talent starting their own business. Because much of this “elite” discussion is really about how to get into corporate world or government and game the system. Get the right degree/major, dress right, speak right, make right connections, blah bah bah. We all know that politicians that rise to the top are varying degrees of sociopaths and narcissists, and studies show the same for corporate leaders…and where do many of them go to school? Yes…“elite schools”. Now, I am not saying ALL people who go to elite schools are this way, or that elite schools create these types of people, but they DO attract them because these people know what is necessary to game themselves to the top. Entrepreneurs on the other hand are usually looking at ways to solve problems with the byproduct being money, because we all need money to live after all. They don’t care about pedigree or where your piece of paper was earned. They start businesses that add value, period. So if your goal is to be a Wall St. Con artist or corrupt US Senator, or a very overpriced lawyer, or overpaid elite professor, or corporate suck up, yes it is a good idea to go to an elite school, it will matter. If we are being honest, “elite” = taking advantage of the “non-elite” in most (not all) cases. Look at our president as an example…never had a real job that I know of, but will walk out of office a multi-millionaire. That is a transfer of wealth from those who created it, to those who did not (wealth being work by definition).
@kollegeguy I think you have a somewhat cynical view of the world. So entrepreneurs are good and “add value” but people from elite schools are just “gaming” their way to the top and most are taking advantage of the non-elite? That a pretty broad brush stroke.
@harvest. Admittedly a broad stoke, and certainly does not apply to all or even most who attend elite schools. The elite school route is often pursued by political/legal and corporate gamers, as it is the gateway into the system. That is not the same as saying all that attend elite schools are gamers ( they are not) nor that gamers do not attend non elite cools ( they do ), nor to say that ALL politicians and corporate execs are bad ( they are not).
It seems that the whole process of networking and making contacts has changed dramatically over the past decade. And, it’s unrecognizable from what was required while may of us posting here were in the trenches. What used to require face to face meetings, letters, phone calls personal introductions by friends can now be accomplished via a number of social media methods. If one is willing and able to work within this new framework one can be very successful in the ‘schmoozing’ arena.
I guess I just find those kinds of statements a little extreme especially when you then go on to extol the virtues of entrepreneurs. Wasn’t Bernie Madoff an entrepreneur? And I don’t think he went to elite schools. I think TV evangelists could be classified as entrepreneurs also. I think they truly fit the definition of “gamers” and opportunists.
My belief is that there are “gamers” in all professions and they don’t come from any particular schools or set of schools. Taking advantage of other people or being “corrupt” is a character issue that can be found indiscriminately across the population. I don’t think that elite schools breed or attract this sort of person, which I “think” is what you imply.
I am not certain that the wealthiest zip code lies right outside of D.C. I always though the top 5 were in CT, NJ, CA and NY. But the lists differ depending on who creates them and by how they measure wealth. But I do not draw the inference that a wealthy zip code in close proximity to D.C. correlates to corruption. I have no reliable information on how those households earn a living or accumulated their wealth. So I just wouldn’t make that leap.
People keep saying this, but this isn’t true in DH’s industry. DH lives his professional life on the phone or in face to face breakfast/lunch meetings. He is on the phone for hours and hours every day, working his deals. I sure hope it’s not true that cell phones cause brain cancer.
^^^^ I was referring mainly to how initial contacts can now be made. How one can get that first introduction which might lead to the opening of a door.
Hopefully most a majority of day to day interactions will remain on a human to human level.
I have one kid who I believe could network his way to a contact for just about anything.