Where does the prestige boost end?

Parents Forum
21

Without going through every one of them (acknowledging there may be one with cutting edge, recent data), I would hesitate to put too much credence into the studies listed in post #9, as the data analyzed does not reflect the current college admissions climate.

The first and most commonly cited study - Kreuger and Dale - is a good example. The study is based on the outcomes of people who entered college in 1989. Does anybody here think the college applications process, the admissions process and selectivity, accessibility of top colleges for nontraditional students and even the resources offered at top selectives vs state unis from 1989 even remotely resembles the current situation?

In the late '80s, the distribution of top students was less concentrated since in many areas top students hadn’t even heard of many of these colleges and those that did had little access. An example would be the math prodigy from outside NE or CA and was more likely to have gone to his/her state U than a top selective. With the internet, rankings and programs designed to allow first gen and nontraditional students access to the top selectives, this has completely changed in the last ten years. That same math prodigy would be likely to apply to and attend a top selective than the state U. At the same time, the offerings and quality of the programs at the top schools has accelerated while funding for many state Us has languished. IMO, all this will contribute to a widening of the outcomes for the people who entered college since 2005 or so. It will be many years before we have enough history to analyze that data, though.

Can top students get top quality education at schools other than the most highly sought after? Yes! Of course. There will be smart kids at every school. But I think the generalization that outcomes are roughly equal for every school will not hold true in the future given the increasing polarization and rush to the top.

How does that play out for the mid-tier? Tough to guess. My bet would be that certain mid-tier schools will become top tier and the rest remain regionally known with commensurate results for graduates depending on if they want to stay in the region in which they graduated.

22

IMO, the prestige boost doesn’t end, but diminishes in importance over time. For example, I work in the accounting / tax profession and interview candidates with 4-6 years work experience in my field. Where they work (primarily Big 4, and second tier firms) and most importantly the type of work they are currently doing is very important to the position we are hiring for. Where they went to school is a plus (e.g USC, UCLA) versus say CSUN whose accounting/tax undergrad is not as strong. All things equal, I’m taking the USC/UCLA undergrad because historically these are bright kids coming from very good programs in our field.

23

This is not precisely the question I’m asking. Taking the very top out of the equation, is there a boost from a higher ranked school vs. a lower ranked school. I realize that rankings are imperfect measures. When a student asks, is full pay at Boston University or NYU worth it over a far less expensive education at Mercer, Clarkson, or Suny Buffalo, What are the considerations – in terms of outcome.

24

Ok… now I understand. In my opinion being full pay at BU versus attending SUNY Buffalo… will depend on the student and what he/she does while there… and not the school.

Where I live … it is very common for B students to attend Penn State OOS rather than attend our instate options. These kids would not get into our top instate school. Do I think these kids at PS will be at an advantage over the kids at our top instate school… simply because Penn State is on the diploma? Absolutely not. They need to show what they have accomplished over the 4 years.

25

And again, career outcome isn’ correlated with school prestige. In your example, I would pick a Clarkson scholarship for engineering above full pay BU and NYU any day.

26

Interesting post. The OP is “thinking about the individual student…not the student body as a whole”. That actually eliminates the need for rankings as it’s pretty clear the right individual CAN do very well from any college. The point, at least for me, of the rankings and taking a much closer look IS about the student body as a whole. Think of it like an ecosystem. Is college X a place designed for and occupied by the intellectual student or the keg party (most will be a combination of the two - but where do they fall on the scale?). So an engineering school (or highly accomplished program within a larger Uni) that is highly selective and tends to cater to very intelligent, technical, serious future engineers will have many resources (the ecosystem) to develop that student and present him / her to the engineering community. Whether it be research with esteemed professors, access to 3D printers, many flavors of engineering clubs, on campus recruiting from the best firms and a track record of placement within those top firms.

So the same student who attends college X (similar to above) vs. college Y (random, lesser prestige) CAN likely create their own opportunity at college Y, But that is the expectation of college X. The question is will s/he? It’s harder as an outlier but certainly can be done. The point of the ecosystem is simply that. Do you want to be in an environment that’s designed to assist the high achiever to thrive or one that will allow for it as they support the “average” student.

An anecdote from many yrs ago (yes things have changed but it is still relevant). Although in a completely different field today and have been since the late 80s, I was a broadcast / communications major at state U. Wanted to be a sportscaster. Other than the school newspaper, there were virtually no resources to explore that career. No news show produced by students. No television reporting at games, etc. Right around the time ESPN was created. So… a buddy and I who wanted to pursue those things and gain experience created the first student run play - by- play broadcast of UX Basketball. They literally hadn’t done that before and we did it. Worked our tales off. Had I gone to Syracuse, or BU, or Emerson, or X where the ecosystem is all about that, I would have had internships at TV stations and visibility / opportunities to the pipeline those schools create. I didn’t have that. Couldn’t find work in my field after several yrs and changed course (no worries… own a successful financial services firm). My announcing partner worked his tale off for many yrs in the industry and is an independent producer with regular gigs at ESPN. So… you COULD do it from anywhere (he did), but the resources or lack thereof made it very difficult.

27

@rickle1 You make a great point. While anything can be done from anywhere, it can take years and not all have the resources/temperment to hang in there.
The OP asks a question perhaps no one can answer. Is it worth paying full freight for a BU vs. the next lowest tier. It might also depend on the school in comparison. BU, for example has grown in rank a lot in recent years. Someone coming out of there with a degree will have access to a wide array of research and networking opportunities that someone from SUNY might not.

@socaldad2002 This is a also true. Though I’d imagine in your field as a CPA you can also rely/fall back on the fact that the applicant has taken the tests. This is not true in that many fields. So while the name of the college definitely diminishes over time, in some industries it continues to resonate for decades. This can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

28

It doesn’t really matter because most companies care more that the kids has the degree and the goods the job description calls for than the college BUT unless they expect to pay relocation they will care where the kid is and why they want to live where that business is located…yet another version of the “why is” college app question. Kids sit next to people from selective colleges and non selective colleges all the time except for or a very, very few isolated businesses/industries.

One engineer I knew years back when I was involved in HR complained all the time about compensation because he had a PhD in engineering and his coworkers who did the same work did not have advanced degrees. And all those folks had degrees from all different engineering schools. There are plenty of careers like engineering with very narrow compensation bands and college selectivity has very little to do with the compensation. This is an age old discussion.

29

I think @TheGreyKing nailed it. It’s the profile of your student body. Don’t kid yourself. Good, bad and otherwise rubs off. Goes without saying you “get” a great education anywhere.

30

@momofthreeboys I’m not sure “very, very few isolated businesses/industries” is a fair way to describe it. 25%-30% of graduates are going into finance and consulting. More are also going towards top tech jobs where your college directly affects your placement ability.

http://time.com/money/3034805/ivy-league-careers-business-finance-nonprofits/

Hyperbole on either side of this debate is unnecessary.

31

It depends what “certain careers” you are talking about. In general, I expect the “prestige” boost is quite small outside a few industries, such as elite investment banking and to a lesser extent elite consulting. The overwhelming majority of other industries emphasize relevant experience and skills over “prestige.” In most cases, the colleges a particular employer favors are not the most prestigious ones.

For example, you asked about Pomona vs Bucknell. These are on opposite coasts of the country. The employers attending career type events will be biased towards nearby colleges. If you want to work in southern CA, you’ll find more southern CA employers at Pomona career fairs, more southern CA employers will be familiar with the college, and you’ll have better networking with southern CA employers. Similarly Bucknell has the advantage for Pennsylvania area employers. It’s also relevant what percent of students major in different fields and how reputable the respective colleges are in those fields (not the same as prestige). I’m not familiar enough with Pomona and Bucknell to go in to this level of detail. You can get some clues by look at lists of which employers attend career fairs at the different colleges and what the students are most likely to do after graduation. An example one for Bucknell is at https://www.bucknell.edu/Documents/CDC/2015PostGradReport.pdf . Some highlights are:

97% placement rate
81% work in northeast, most in PA/NY/NJ
Some of the more common employers for A&S graduates were Dellotte, E&Y, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, PWC, and RSM. Mean salary was ~$50k.
Some of the more common employers for Engineering graduates were Clark Construction and General Dynamics. Mean salary was ~$65k (varies significantly by major)

32

IMO, you can’t have a generalized blanket answer for all because it will depend on the field, the kid, the schools, the regions, goals, and really too many other factors to count.

I can offer advice in fields/regions I am familiar with, but that has to be by a case-by-case basis.

I will say that when the difference between being full-pay and getting a full-tuition scholarship is $200K (which would be $1.5M after 40Ys with a conservative 5% annual growth rate), it’s really hard to justify being full-pay from a purely ROI/monetary perspective for most fields unless the difference in educational quality and opportunities (or maybe flexibility) is vast. But honestly, if ROI is your top concern, your major may matter more.

BTW, when it comes to getting an MBA, the ROI calculation is different, where there is a difference between the top and below.

33

I would give much more credibility to someone who accomplished great things at a less prestigious college than one whose greatest accomplishment was getting into a more prestigious place.

34

Re:consulting or investment banking the same companies are also recruiting at UofM, Nortwestern, Chicago and many other selective colleges across the country other than the Ivy League and other northeastern selective colleges. It is really more about the kid and what they can contribute.

35

@momofthreeboys But the opportunities weigh heavily towards certain schools: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/mbb-the-target-school-advantage (not to say this linked thread is official, however it shows a decent representation)

36

OP- I think I understand what you are getting at.

I’ve been hiring new grads (and mid level and executive level professionals) in a bunch of industries for almost 35 years for big companies. Some very “high” on the “we only hire from prestigious colleges/grad programs” and some not so high.

I know very little about the hiring practices for physicians, dentists, and a bunch of other professions. But I know what I know which is a wide swath of corporate America.

The single most important variable in professional success and the kind of outcome data you are looking for is the kid. Your kid. That’s the key determinant. Everything else is either relevant or not relevant, or sometimes important but not always important. But the actual new grad who is interviewing- that’s key.

I have interviewed thousands of new grads over the course of my career and not once have I ever hired a resume, a datapoint, or an outcome. My company (or the previous companies) sets targets for various kinds of roles in various geographies, and our goal is to hit the target with a class or cohort or group of new hires to meet our criteria. And that “class” is made up of young people (or in the case of executive level hiring- not a class- just a person- an expert in whatever it is we need). And each hire needs to stand on its own as a good decision. We don’t hire 12 from “highly prestigious college” and then 5 from “less prestigious college” and hope they balance each other out. Every single hire has to get through the interview and assessment process and hopefully- become a productive and impactful employee.

To the extent that certain colleges make it very, very easy to hire their grads- wow, employers are really grateful. But I’ve hired from colleges that are not that easy to navigate (like everyone with over a B average in their major gets some “honors” distinction) and even then- a kid who is exceptional is exceptional.

So if you are asking “is it worth the premium in terms of ROI down the road, better job, higher salary” my answer is “sometimes”. If you have a kid who won’t network, who has no ability to plan ahead, who isn’t that ambitious professionally, then picking a college with a top notch career services team can really pay off. But- your kid has to show up. Nobody will wake your kid and drag him/her to a mock interview, or a practice round for a “meet and greet”. That’s on your kid. But the infrastructure to make your kid a successful hire is their if your kid is willing to go along with it.

If you have a kid who is going to major in beer pong or “how to plan a sorority formal” then no, the upcharge for a more expensive college is likely not going to pay out. If you have a kid who always takes the easy way out- and won’t be writing a senior thesis if it’s optional, then dumping that kid in a resource intensive college where kids get lots of 1:1 attention for their senior thesis- hey, your kid isn’t going to bother, so why bother?

So it’s about the kid.

Is it easier to get hired from a name brand U? Yes. Those institutions do lots of things right- including selecting a class which ends up inspiring both the top and the bottom of the class to run harder to keep up, do a deep dive intellectually, work harder to stay afloat. And those kids are easy to hire. Most companies would rather have kids who know how to run hard rather then slack off.

But if your kid won’t do those things? The name on the diploma won’t help.

37

I’m interested in this discussion because we went the merit aid route with S. So, at least by standardized scores, he’ll be in above the top 75th% at the school he chooses, and at a lower ranked school. My feeling was that it wouldn’t matter so much for undergrad (he’s not going into engineering or business). I do agree, though, with the posts about the benefits of being surrounded by those as bright or brighter than you (I experienced law school at both a lower ranked and Ivy League school), and so I keep second-guessing our decision!

38

@blossom Thanks for that very thoughtful post! How far “down” will companies look to hire an excellent kid? Clearly, NYU and BU - one step below the Ivies are fine. But is there a limit? How about the schools ranked significantly below 100 - Adelphi? University of Hartford? Unranked schools like Mercy? Is there a level below which even an excellent kid just can’t gain any traction? I’m not trying to denigrate any particular school. I really don’t know anything about these schools except their rank – just meant as examples.

I have seen posts here warning high stat kids away from certain schools – calling them 4th tier or unsuitable regionals or directionals. I always wonder if this is based on potential outcome or the idea that a high stat student will be unhappy with the peer group.

39

@gallentjill – there are studies that indicate that prestige really is only beneficial to URM’s and/or first generation college students. That makes some sense because those students may have an extra burden to overcome to know how to break into the labor market for college grads, and to establish credibility within that labor market. But the vast majority of kids who are faced with the choosing between elites and less prestigious colleges for financial a reasons don’t have those barriers.

Beyond that, I think you are asking the wrong questions. Most companies aren’t hiring based on colleges – they post openings and look at resumes, and prior work experience is a huge factor. Other job requirements also play a role; for exampe a job might require or look favorably upon specific skills or proficiency in a foreign language.

Sure, there are companies that show up to campus and recruit from specific schools – but that’s a very competitive setting where students end up competing with others from their own school. So the student whose academics are lackluster at an Ivy is probably not going to to get the jobs when there are stronger students showing up for the same interview.

College grades matter, a lot. Internships and paid employment during school matter, a lot. Personal qualities of the applicant matter, a lot. And very often the students at the less prestigious college may find opportunities to distinguish themselves that wouldn’t have materialized at the elite college. That’s why the student who gets into an Ivy but turns down the spot and attends a public u. instead is likely to do just as well for employment.

40

@RandyErika “I would give much more credibility to someone who accomplished great things at a less prestigious college than one whose greatest accomplishment was getting into a more prestigious place”

I actually would give more credibility to someone who accomplished great things AND went to a prestigious college since it shows that the student has done great things even before college. In today’s college admissions environment it’s no small feat doing all the right things for acceptance to an elite college. I would not dismiss this at all since these kids set in motion their future from at least middle school with the type of class rigor, course selection challenging themselves academically, hard work and sacrifice, and probbaky significant ECs from the time they were 12,13, and 14 years old and continuing throughout high school.