What are the Lifetime Advantages of Attending Top Colleges

originaloog · May 17, 2006, 9:55pm

Responding the TheGFG’s post #676, I think you are misinterpreting many(some?) of the post here. The best students certainly should be encouraged to attend any college they determine to suit their needs and expectations. If it is Harvard, great. If it is Bucknell, great too.

I think what many people here understand(believe?) is that 10 years down the road that student will most likely be living a similarly successful, fulfilling and happy life regardless of the college name on the diploma. That is what the best study I have read indicates and that is my experience after 30+ years in the college classroom.

I would never consider a superb student as being elitist for attending the most selective of colleges.

marite · May 17, 2006, 10:06pm

Elite and expensive (unless there is financial aid available for which one may qualify) may go together but expensive does not equal elite, if by this one means most selective. BU, Skidmore, Sarah Lawrence, Connecticut College, to name just a few, are all as expensive,give or take $1k or 2, than HYP, but their selectivity varies.

Anybody can have an amazing, life-changing experience in college. Exactly where depends a great deal on the student. For reason of fit, both academic and social, my S had a limited range of schools to choose from. Since we don’t qualify for financial aid, financial considerations were not a factor, but all the schools on S’s list–not all Ivies though all quite selective–were more or less equally expensive. At each, he would have had an amazing experience. Life-changing? Probably not since he was quite clear about what he wanted. Besides, as I’ve stated elsewhere, we chose colleges for fit in the here and now, not for some possible “advantages” in the distant future.

SBmom · May 17, 2006, 11:08pm

Re: LIFETIME adavantages-- I said what I think mine were earlier in this thread, but either nobody is counting Brown as a ‘top college’ or nobody is reading my posts

Oh well, I’ll give a one-sentence summary: The biggest advantage is the open curriculum: you’ll learn a great attack plan on crafting a happy life.

golferfirst: 
You child might want to check out Brown. It is a sociable, passionate, low-pressure but high-stimulation place. If you click on my name at left you can see my other posts on this thread about Brown for specifics.

If your child is a boy look at Deep Springs. Truly unique. Other schools I find very similar in spirit that have not been named already: Grinnell, Wesleyan, Vassar.

curmudgeon: Thank you for your post; very good points. Although if your D had chosen Yale you would not have any credibility! ;)

curmudgeon · May 17, 2006, 11:23pm

Had she chosen Yale, SBmom, I would be working my second job down to the dairy, shoveling :eek: till dawn.

Now let’s not get confused. I haven’t been dissing the super elites as I happen to like 'em. As does my D. I just didn’t have a lot to add to that part of the conversation because I would have admitted straight out that the connections with the students, faculty, and alumni that Yale would bring my D would have definitely been a (not the, a) selling point for me. I just didn’t see anything wrong with admitting it. ;)

SBmom · May 17, 2006, 11:55pm

Understood.

I was just happy to get support from $h**-kickin wildman (and mensch) whom nobody could accuse of being a snob!!

curmudgeon · May 18, 2006, 12:01am

Just here to serve, ma’am. Just here to serve. (You’re welcome.)

viewpoint · May 18, 2006, 4:02am

"I have hired three Ivy Leauge new grads over the last four years. None of them are currently employed by my firm. One left because he felt that he wasn’t being promoted fast enough (the group he was responsible for didn’t have good results but he felt he should be promoted anyhow). One left when he got three poor reviews in a row. He felt that every decision was time for debate; we don’t have time to debate everything: your boss decides and then we move on. The third has just been asked to leave because he was consistantly circumventing the chain of command in the organization.

The midwestern grads don’t work quite as hard (they tend to head home at 5:30 or 6:00 instead of 7:00 or 8:00) but the quality of their output seems to be better.

One other thing that is interesting is that when we are interviewing, even for engineers, we tend to dismiss grade point as long as it is above a preestablished minimum (generaly 3.5). The biggest thing that we are looking for is communication skills…the kids have to be able to sell themselves to me …how else are they going to be able to sell their ideas to the group and to our customers (the government). Some of the highest grade points have been associated with the poorest communications skills, which is why we don’t dwell on GPA anymore."

A few thoughts …

1) Ivy students are socialized to be highly individualistic, competitive, outspoken, nonconforming, etc. Thus many have trouble adjusting to corporate environment where teamwork, conformity, rule-following, etc. are emphasized.

2) Many Ivy students, having been recognized throughout their lives for high achievement, develop strong ego, and often are not receptive to criticism or suggestions for improvement. Also, because many did not feel strong need to persuade others of their brilliance (which was often assumed), they may not have developed the skills to sell themselves or their ideas to others. Some may not feel the need to prove themselves with concrete results.

3) Ivy students, exposed to highly original and unconventional academic theories, develop mindsets and thought-patterns that may not jibe very well with practical, common-sensical, down-to-earth, Midwestern sensibilities.

4) Many bright scholars don’t relate well with the common folks; many were misfits in their high schools. Unfortunately, fresh Ivy grads are too young to realize that being able to work with people of diverse backgrounds, even those much less intelligent than they, is important to their real world success.

I often feel that the colleges in the U.S., even the top Ivies do not prepare their students adequtely for the real world. If I can find investors, I could start inexpensive, practical colleges that will prepare the graduates for the job market better than any of the overpriced and ineffective Ivies. What I envision is a 6-7 year program combining academics with co-op and internships; the core curriculum will include courses in business etiquette, teamwork, communication, sales training, computers/IT, along with large number of required courses in management and technology.

There’s something terribly wrong with current state of higher education in the U.S., if the most prestigious colleges admit the best and brightest students and turn them into garbage that the corporate world won’t touch.

Momwaitingfornew · May 18, 2006, 6:58am

“47 pages+ of lots back and forth by lots of people who write lots and lots of stuff. Are there any winners here in the Lifetime Advantages category?”

Okay, I have some for you. My husband, who has both an undergraduate degree and a PhD from Ivies, has gotten ALL his jobs in part because of it. He got into his PhD program because of it - and that took him the rest of the way. Of course, he’s really good at what he does (he’s now a professor, but he did a 12 year stint in industry as well), but his degree - and the people he has met along the way - have formed a network that has taken him along a rewarding career path. He doesn’t make a ton of money (professors don’t), but he has a national and international reputation in his field. Those are the tangibles. The intangibles are an ongoing intellectual life beyond what we would be able to do ourselves. For example, we’ve been seated at dinner over the years with several Nobel Laureates. We’ve talked with high-profile CEOs. We’ve listened to talks by grad students, professors, and alumni in fields that we originally knew little about. In addition, we’ve met some fascinating but much lower profile people who have enriched our lives through conversation. Now, this isn’t true of all alumni in the Ivies; my husband has decided to be active in an alumni organization.

I, on the other hand, have had little tangible “lifetime advantages” because I’m in a creative field. Although I got my first (non-creative) job because of my degree, that has been it in terms of concrete professional advantages. While my degree technically got me into grad school two decades after graduation, I didn’t need the Ivy degree to do that. However, the level of discussion I’ve been trained to maintain distinguished me in grad school. (Students from non-Ivies such as Vassar had similar impacts.) In my evaluations, my professors all said that I brought the level of discussion to a higher but generous level. Was that because I attended an Ivy? No, not directly. It may have been because I was the TYPE of person to attend an Ivy; I have high standards for myself. I currently teach college part-time, and I consistently get high-evaluations from the students, several of whom have told me personally that I was the best professor they’ve had. My Ivy taught me how to teach at a high level. I’m not teaching Ivy students, but I’m trying to bring the same standards into my classroom. Although I can’t demand of these students as much as I could at an Ivy (as it is, I push them a lot and am known as a tough grader), I have given them the teaching style of the Ivy. I think that’s a lifetime advantage: to be able to know what makes a good educator and to bring that knowledge into a classroom of kids who got Bs and Cs in high school.

The examples of my husband and me do not mean that all Ivy grads do well, or that they take advantage of the after-graduation opportunities. We know one man who was accepted at an Ivy who was still living at home when he was close to 40 years old. He worked, but had not excelled personally. He is the exception rather than the rule. Our friends from college own their own companies, head departments at renowned universities and hospitals, and have generally taken hold of the world.

marite · May 18, 2006, 7:15am

Somehow, little of this jives with what I know of my S’s experience in high school. None of S’s friends, who are now at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc…, ever looked burnt out to me, though many stayed up late. After all, lots of teenagers are night-owls. S tended to stay up late—but to download music, write webfiction, etc… I don’t think he ever did school work past 11 pm in high school.

Again, that does not jibe with the Harvard I know. It would not be Harvard without its 300+ EC groups ranging from the Krokodiloes, the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra, the Crimson, the Hasty Pudding, Harvard Lampoon, the Philips Brooks House (the largest college community service organization in the country). And every year, apparently, there are more groups forming. The people in these groups cannot have their nose to the grindstone all the time.

My S has found very good friends at Harvard; I suspect they are in the process of becoming a “group” that may eventually seek recognition. How many did your D’s friend want to have so that she could have a good experience?

simba · May 18, 2006, 8:30am

“The midwestern grads don’t work quite as hard (they tend to head home at 5:30 or 6:00 instead of 7:00 or 8:00)”

Packer: does your company pay overtime? top salary? or people are just ‘expected’ to work more for the fun of it? (in that case your company would be a sweatshop)

TheGFG · May 18, 2006, 9:21am

From Packer:

"I have hired three Ivy Leauge new grads over the last four years. None of them are currently employed by my firm. One left because he felt that he wasn’t being promoted fast enough (the group he was responsible for didn’t have good results but he felt he should be promoted anyhow). One left when he got three poor reviews in a row. He felt that every decision was time for debate; we don’t have time to debate everything: your boss decides and then we move on. The third has just been asked to leave because he was consistantly circumventing the chain of command in the organization.

I will not be looking for any additional grads from these schools any time in the near future. They seem to be out of touch with the realities of the business world…we are getting much better results (at about $5K lower salary) from midwestern state school grads."

Packer, I’m not criticizing your hiring decisions, because I do understand that after your recent experiences it would be difficult to justify hiring someone else from those schools.

BUT, it seems to me then, that a lifetime advantage or disadvantage of an Ivy graduate is to be lumped in that group that is Ivy graduates. There doesn’t exist the same perception of a unified group that is public university graduates. In four years you’ve had a problem with three individuals. Since you said “schools” in the plural, I’m assuming all three were not even from the same college.

I’m having a hard time believing that during those same four years, and especially years prior, your company never had 3 other ineffective employees who had some commonality among them. Maybe the commonality was that they were all blondes, or males, or white, or middle class, or from Illinois, or they all graduated from UMich. Yet I doubt that based on that commonality the company would have decided to institute a change in hiring policy, eg. from then on never hire another blonde. But since the folks were all Ivy grads, there was a judgment that what was true of 3 would be true of all.

Packers1 · May 18, 2006, 9:25am

Simba,
Actually, we get people who come to us because we aren’t a ‘sweatshop’. When we have a big program review or a certification that needs to be approved we all tend to work some big hours. The rest of the time you will see folks leaving after 6 or 7 hours if they are caught up. It’s fairly relaxed.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST: LIFETIME ADVANTAGES

It really depends on what your goal is. I have four family members who are tenued at various universities and for them the choice of grad school seemed to be very important to their career progresion. They got undergrads from a real asortment of schools: LAC, big 10, Ivy, Caimbridge. They were all pretty good students as undergrads, but certainly not 4.0 (well, one was close to that for two years…), but they were really passionate about their chosen field and that was evident when talking to them and I think it helped them get into to the grad schools that they wanted.

Looking at this question from my personal standpoint in the ‘industrial’ world (we make a ‘product’ and have to sell it), the situation seems a little different. Your school may help you get your first job, but after that first job the rest of your career progression is going to depend on how well you can do your work. We don’t even ask during an interview about what school the applicant went to, rather what they did at their last job. I’ve got a global VP of engineering witha History degree from a really small school and a Marketing Director with an art degree from Columbia. Their degrees and where they got them from are absolutely not a factor in their employment.
One possible advantage to some of the Ivies is the networking, but a lot of that seems to be tied into the ‘old school’ banking and finance sectors. I don’t know how well tied in they are to the electronics and technology sectors.

My personal opinoin is that a top school education will give you abig advantage if you are going become a professor or a lawyer but for most other careers it will be of limited benefit after getting you that first job.

simba · May 18, 2006, 9:47am

^ what is your attrition rate? or rather retention rate for 0-5 year fresh hire?

TheGFG · May 18, 2006, 9:47am

Maybe we should discuss for which careers an Ivy education seems to be most helpful for a lifetime, and for which it isn’t.

I’ll start the helpful list: academia

marite · May 18, 2006, 9:48am

Maybe that’s the answer. Ivies are not the best places to go to for engineering and technology. It would be more interesting to learn whether MIT, CMU or Caltech grads were as poor fits as the 3 Ivy-grads that left the compnay seem to have been.

sjmom2329 · May 18, 2006, 9:48am

I don’t really agree with this statement, for certain fields. Beyond academia or the law, there ARE positions which require some level of eminence in one’s field. Consulting and/or R & D often require that one publish regularly in trade periodicals, and qualifications are often listed when someone is speaking at a conference or submitting an article.

apfreak · May 18, 2006, 10:15am

well it makes you look really cool

Packers1 · May 18, 2006, 10:17am

Simba,
Three year retention rate is running at 84% right now across the company (14,000 employees). Five year is at lower than that but I don’t have a number. My guess would be in the mid to high 70s%. Most turnover is in the electronics group.

simba · May 18, 2006, 10:36am

16% attrition seems high. do you know the reasons? Is it the salary? benefit? growth opportunity? learning? diversity? work life balance? In my company similar rate is in 5% range (don’t know the exact number).

mini · May 18, 2006, 10:46am

“BUT, it seems to me then, that a lifetime advantage or disadvantage of an Ivy graduate is to be lumped in that group that is Ivy graduates…But since the folks were all Ivy grads, there was a judgment that what was true of 3 would be true of all.”

I don’t know - isn’t that exactly the way, over a period of generations, that positive spin was/is created about “Ivy” graduates (attendees of schools that banned together in a football conference?) Isn’t that precisely how the “Ivy advantage” is generated, and why the schools become desirable? It has always seemed to me that (having attended one), the prestige colleges and undergraduate portions of private prestige universities could disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow with virtually no impact on our national life.

It has always seemed to me (from experience) that the greatest advantage from prestige schools is generated among that segment of the population that least requires it.

What are the Lifetime Advantages of Attending Top Colleges

CONNECT WITH US