<p>“College is–or at least should be–more than 4 years picking up a piece of paper that will qualify you to do things that require a college degree. If someone attends Swarthmore and gets a wonderful education that education isn’t worthless because it doesn’t impress the folks in Texas as much as one from Texas A&M or the folks in Michigan as much as one from UMichigan.”</p>
<p>Of course not. That goes without saying. A good education is worthwhile regardleas of who it “impresses” or not. Look, my D goes to a top LAC that few people around here recognize, despite having some very prominent graduates. Well, that’s their problem. Not hers. In the least.</p>
<p>Purely anecdotal, but now that D1 has graduated, we’ve been keeping track of what her peers are now up to. I know of no one who isn’t working or in grad school. Her friends include the range from 2nd tier publics all the way to Harvard. The employment scene may be more difficult than it was when some of us graduated (although some of us graduated right as things went bust, so don’t know how different it really is), but I’m betting it’s not as bad as some would have us believe.</p>
<p>Yes, of course. If you read my post from earlier this morning, Bill Gates himself cited UIUC as the program Microsoft hires more graduates from than anywhere else. Again, it is the MYTH of Ivy/elite superiority that gets perpetuated on this site, again and again. No one has been able to prove conclusively that attending a “top” school is an advantage for students entering the workforce (except perhaps in a niche field like investment banking, in which case the prestige definitely matters). </p>
<p>People (even otherwise intelligent ones) believe what they want to believe. They need to perpetuate the myths because they have built their whole world view around them. Parents who have spent 18 years cultivating their special snowflakes for extreme greatness can’t just all of a sudden accept that maybe they needn’t have bothered. They have to continue to believe that their hard work and investment in their children will result in the kind of return they think they deserve.</p>
<p>ETA: And by “needn’t have bothered” I am not suggesting that parents shouldn’t do the best they can for their kids or provide them with as many opportunities as possible. I simply mean that putting them on the Ivy/elite track from an early age is, for the most part, not worth the obsession or sacrifice.</p>
<p>Since poetgrl (#730) threw what appears to be a gratuitous brickbat in what appears to be my direction, . . . </p>
<p>I feel that “top” school admission looks somewhat differently if the school is not viewed as a branding mechanism nor as a networking opportunity (not saying that anyone here is doing that), but as a set of specifically academic experiences. </p>
<p>The “top” schools tend to offer some undergraduate classes that are more challenging than a number of those offered at some other schools. The intellectual growth that this fosters does matter to people who would like to generate new knowledge in their fields. A student who goes to a public research university (e.g., me) can cobble together a curriculum that includes graduate courses in the major and allied fields and high-level courses in other areas, but I think that high-quality academic advising is essential for this to happen. Fortunately, I had a really good academic adviser, who let me know that one could get around some of the catalog prerequisites. </p>
<p>I didn’t especially like the WSJ column. Still, it seems to me that there has been a lot of criticism of it–for example, by lookingforward, who complained about Weiss “mocking” the students who got in. Yet, I cannot recall lookingforward objecting to the admissions personnel at a certain tech school in Massachusetts mocking the well-qualified applicants who were not admitted there. Did I miss that objection?</p>
<p>The commentary by TheGFG makes a lot of sense to me. And “amen!” to jonri’s #735.</p>
<p>So if I disagree with you, sally, you assume I’m a liar? Yep, now we can add the insult of dishonesty to the list which already includes provincial, unsophisticated, lacking smarts, hung up… Well, here are two ad examples for you. If I had gone to an elite school and could afford to pay someone else to take care of my menial household duties, I’d have time to find plenty more. All I did is go to indeedjob.com and google “top school.” You can do that if you wish.</p>
<p>FINANCIAL ANALYST 1 YEAR EXP FROM A TOP SCHOOL TO 60K + BONU…
Parker and Lynch - New York, NY 10017 (Midtown area) </p>
<p>The position provides support to the Director of Business Planning & Analysis in monitoring the portfolio of multiple subsidiaries as well as supports the… </p>
<p>Estee Lauder 58 reviews - New York, NY </p>
<p>At The Estēe Lauder Companies we strive to, hire the best and brightest talent from top universities, and provide global opportunities for each individual to…</p>
<p>Don’t feel bad, sally, epiphany also accused me of dishonesty in post 682. I believe I substantiated the claim she challenged in my post 686. An apology would be nice.</p>
<p>My take away from the other threads is that many posters don’t see “a set of specifically academic experiences” of which only certain students will be able to take advantage, as ever a valid reason to accept those students. A couple of posters up-thread wrote about answering the “Why?” question with importance of department and certain faculty. I know snowflakes who apply, as undergraduates, for certain departments and for the opportunity to work with famous (in a very small world;)) professors. Sometimes those departments happen to be at tippy-top schools. In a way this may still be about branding and networking but it is more about how academic resources are used imho. I am okay with denying a snowflake admission to a school where she would immediately begin graduate level and independent coursework with the major players in the field – if that spot is going to someone from a disadvantaged background, who didn’t have the same resources growing up as the advanced student. It seems a different question when the decision is between the academically advanced snowflake and a snowflake wanting to be an IB. Can’t you be an IB from almost any top school? Does access to particular coursework and certain professors really matter to that student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see a lot of defense of the establishment and status quo on these threads. Someone accepted to the top schools becomes part of that establishment. Someone denied is other. imho ymmv</p>
<p>^^^^^Asking for references to me meant not that you were being dishonest, but just wondering if you were working off of anecdotal evidence vs. actual data.</p>
<p>TheGFG, I did not and would not call you a liar or any of the other things you cited. As Nrdsb4 said, I was just asking for substantiation. Thank you for trying to offer it.</p>
<p>I mentioned IB/finance as an exception in my next post after the one addressed to you, so that example doesn’t surprise me. It is widely known that those types of firms prefer to hire from a VERY narrow range of schools.</p>
<p>The Estee Lauder “ad” is pretty vague. It sounds like a general statement from the HR department or something. I looked up a bunch of actual postings for jobs both in NYC and Minnesota (home of Aveda, which apparently is owned by Estee Lauder). They were all management positions in marketing, quality assurance, business planning and analysis; many of them had “global” in front of them. Not one mentioned the type of university the applicants needed to come from, only that they had a BA or whatever the requirement was. </p>
<p>I did go to an elite school but I can’t afford a cleaning person either. So I will go back to vacuuming and mopping my floors now.</p>
<p>Asking for references can be done politely without a comment like “I don’t buy it,” which implies she is doubting the veracity of my words instead of being curious as to where I am drawing my conclusions from. And epiphany was nominating herself the lone ranger in charge of challenging “unsubstantiated claims” from the likes of me.</p>
<p>I see a lot of Rorschach tests on these threads.</p>
<p>One person sees an attack on the admissions people. Another sees racism in diversity admissions. Someone else sees racism in the mention of diversity admissions. There are regional biases and economic perspectives.</p>
<p>I always think we are having about five different conversations and are half the time arguing on the same side even when it seems we are not.</p>
<p>Some people say, “This is how it is,” and get accused of defending how it is, shoot the messenger… as if the mere statement of fact created the fact.</p>
<p>And… some people see defense of the status quo.</p>
<p>We are all arguing about different parts of the elephant, imho.</p>
<p>No, QM. No. First, any post about MIT is not necessarily directed at you.</p>
<p>Second, quit throwing bread crumbs. YOU, you, QM, repeatedly and then again, brought up criticisms of math nerds. You wouldn’t let it rest. I pointed out that there is only one media source for the insult you brought up, over and over. </p>
<p>I happen to like nerdy sorts, apreciating their minds and their wit. To be frank, I was offended and confused that you would repeatedly put the phrase in front of us- couching it as, oh, but don’t you object to…?</p>
<p>Are you serious? Brickbats and “calling quantmech back?”</p>
<p>I was just joking around and there has been more than that one thread, in fact, the one post “As rejections keep rolling in What do you tell your Honor student?” which turned into an MIT fest, too. It’s the school of the year, for whatever reason, and QM was not even on that thread.</p>
<p>Let me make this clear, too. If Suzy had said, gosh, I should have worn blackface, posters would have screamed. Why is it ok to say wear a NA headdress? She wrote what she wrote and published it. Then defended it. She dud not mock herself. She told us zip about what she had done- only the fakey things she now “sees” she should have done.</p>
<p>Let’s face it, the favored story on CC is “my kid turned down all private colleges and universities in favor of our state flagship with a great scholarship, majored in engineering, and graduated in 4 years with no loans and a great job.” Score even more points if your kid started at CC and transferred to the flagship.</p>
<p>Anything else is suspect. Especially, doG forbid, going to an Ivy league school and majoring in an academic discipline within --O, The Horror!–the humanities.</p>
<p>Lookingforward, I completely disagree with you, blackface and all.</p>
<p>You know, ahl, Lookingforward and I manage to be on opposing sides of all sorts of discussions without getting personal and attacking each other. I thought the kid was funny. She thought the kid was offensive.</p>
<p>Then, we agree on a LOT of stuff.</p>
<p>I tend to view kids as kids and she has different feelings on this.</p>
<p>But she isn’t going to say I’m attacking her and I’m not going to say she’s attacking me. We are talking.</p>
<p>We are all talking. If some people choose to take the conversation overly personally, I think that is about them and not about what I or anybody else says on the thread.</p>
<p>All that said, I really avoid personal attacks and would appreciate the same.</p>