<p>If I were going to stereotype H kids, it wouldn’t be “never made a mistake and always come out on top.” It would be based on the level of challenges they take on and their resiliance.</p>
<p>I realized later that OP alread bit into “vague skills such as “critical thinking” for which the liberal arts are usually praised.” The value of crit thinking is something you can’t always see, at the starting gate. It’s a characteristic that’s common to many top dogs out there and quite different than technical proficiency. It’s the ability to take multiple inputs and effectively weigh them, choose direction, and so much more.</p>
<p>Not all kids graduate with that. Are chances better at Harvard? Not necessarily. The opportunity is there in spades, but many kids will still focus on more measurable results- ie, do the work, comment a bit in class, and wait for the grade.</p>
<p>My issue with statistical studies about unemployment and salaries is that they rarely can factor in the role of the individual- or even sort by the level of colleges, kids’ experiences or the job search approach. In any pool of x grads in some major, a portion will be driven, polished and think expansively- eg, apply to Google, confident of what they offer, how they can slot in, with the ability to interview and the smarts to fuction there.</p>
<p>Btw rather than check what a dept touts about grads’ job successes, OP can go to the web sites of the respective professonal orgs and see what breadth of opps there are.</p>