@websensation Yes, I agree that may be the case when you know the student’s background and understand why they made that decision to turn down HYPSM. You may know that he turned down Harvard in an altruistic gesture to save money for granny’s operation or to help younger siblings, but people quickly glancing at a resume or a resume that’s being scanned by programs for certain keywords, will not know that story. To them, the student is someone who graduated from a lesser school and their application may not be considered in the same way.
No matter how the thread starts, somehow it always gets back to the prestige of HYP.
My son was accepted EA to Yale but as the months wore on he realized he wanted to stay in California. He had only applied to the UCs and was accepted to UCLA. I am glad he is staying in California but it is hard for my wife to see him turn down the prestige that Yale offers. I think she may be discounting how well respected UCLA is, especially in Southern California as well as globally.
^^^ network, alumni, and prestige aren’t just about that first job. They are about your entire career and stretch way beyond a geographic area. 20 yrs from now, a Yale network will be far more reaching and have more impact across the globe than UCLA. I know of SO many situations that were either made easier or possible due to that network from the very top schools. The people I know have greatly benefited from it later on in their careers (40s / 50s). Likely get a bunch of boost along the way.
I think folks overestimate the value of a network in getting a job. It’s nice, might grease a social connection, but doesnt replace the skills the job needs.
I do think some here treat prestige as the be all and end all. Like you’re selling yourself on the idea of worth, value, ROI, being part of some old boys network in perpetuity. Life evolves.
Btw, via grad school, I’m part of the UCLA “network” in Boston. Lol, they meet right under Harvard’s nose. Who says it’s only regional?
@lookingforward I disagree with your first paragraph. For later in your career, “its not what you know, its who you know.” is more important in my experience. People are much more likely to hire the “evil they know” rather then “the evil they don’t” for high responsibility positions. For one thing you can only get so much of a skill assessment in a interview process. I’ve hired many VP level positions and the fact that somebody I know and trust endorses a candidate goes a very long way. I’m sure I’m not in the minority here either based on observation and discussions with peers in companies and organizations of all sizes.
However, I also agree with you last paragraph. The network doesn’t have to be a CHYMPS or UC network. But having a network is a very valuable thing. Could be a network of work associates, trade group, not for profits, church group, etc.
This is a very important idea. There are many ways to network and college alumni are only one. I can’t tell you the number of contacts, internships and leads my family has gotten over the years through volunteering, and through our congregation. This is not to minimize the usefulness of an alumnit network, but its not the only path out there.
D1 graduated from Harvard (high honors in STEM major) last year and took a long time to find a job. He worked on a bunch of projects in the interim, so he stayed busy and made some money, but still, H and I were scratching our heads. I wonder if some companies were hesitant to hire him because they really just wanted a worker bee and they assumed that he wanted to run the company in a few years…not that he conveyed that at all, and I think he would have been happy doing the actual work if it was interesting work. Don’t play any tiny violins for him - he’s doing great, but no one knocked down his door despite his elite education, and more amazing to me, his qualifications and abilities, which are stellar. His roommate, who was also very high achieving in STEM, had a similar experience.
@Gourmetmom I find that surprising. When you say STEM, what exactly do you mean?
Yes, “STEM” describes a range of majors, where major-specific demand varies greatly.
I don’t want to reveal much, but CS and applied math and pursuing software engineering jobs. Most entry level jobs in those fields involve repetitive coding tasks that are not part of the core product. On the other hand, he did not look like a good fit for the typical Google, MicroSoft, etc. management training programs because he’s more technical than they need. Just the odd man out coming from H and demonstrates that finding the right fit and building a career is not the cakewalk everyone assumes.
Princeton and Yale will elicit the same reaction in the US but Harvard is unrivaled abroad. Stanford and MIT are probably the only US schools that are considered to be on the same level as Harvard in Asia.
@JenniferClint Unless you’re a student from Asia looking to return after your American education, why would anyone care which American colleges are prestigious in Asia? Asians probably know little more about our schools as we know about theirs – which is next to nothing. Should my opinion of top schools in India mean anything to anyone?
“a Yale network will be far more reaching and have more impact across the globe than UCLA.”
That’s not universally true, in California based industries - high tech, entertainment etc, UCLA has the better and more reaching network, of course it’s a bigger school, but that’s one of the advantages going to a larger school, a larger network. Yale holds receptions for bay area admits and talking with someone who attended one, was not impressed with their graduates. Didn’t end up going there.
I.e. it is that paper which has an odd view of “tiers” of college and university prestige. You may want to look at the actual lists of colleges and universities in the paper before jumping to any conclusions based on it.
@ucbalumnus, Good catch. The author would have us believe that HYPS and Saint Louis University belong in the same prestige tier (Tier 1, private research I and research II universities). And that Goshen College (IN) should be lumped together with Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona in prestige Tier 2 (private LACs). And that New Mexico State is in the same third-rate prestige tier as UC Berkeley, Michigan, and UVA (Tier 3, public research I universities). So the “results” are pretty much gobbledygook.
There are tons of other problems with the study.
- Its principal finding---that Tier I grads earn more than Tier 3 and Tier 4 grads--- doesn't control for occupation. But the data tables show that nearly 20% of the Tier I male alums in the sample were doctors or lawyers, compared to 9% for Tier 3 and 4.6% for Tier 4. Among women the differences were even starker: 13% of Tier I alums were doctors or lawyers compared to 6% for Tier 3 and 2% for Tier 4. This skews average earnings heavily in favor of Tier I schools because---surprise!---doctors and lawyers tend to have higher earnings than your average college grad.
- The study also concludes that Tier I alums with graduate degrees earn more than Tier 3 and Tier 4 grads with graduate degrees---but again, that finding doesn't control for occupation. Lower percentages of Tier 3 and Tier 4 grads hold advanced degrees (accounting for part of the difference in overall earning). But among those who do hold advanced degrees, Tier 3 and 4 grads,hold MAs in education in far higher percentages than Tier I grads, who conversely are far more likely to hold JD or MD degrees.. And guess what? Doctors and lawyers make more than K-12 teachers.
- The degree-specific data tables show many anomalous results. Among both males and females with MBAs from Tier 1 schools, Tier 2 (LAC) grads earn about 35% more than those with both a BA and an MBA from a Tier 1 school. But if the MBA was from a Tier 3 school the results are reversed, with Tier 2 BAs earning considerably less than Tier I BAs. And among men with MBAs from Tier 3 schools, the highest earners are actually those who earned their BA from a Tier 4 school.
- Men with Tier 1 BAs earned less if they got their MD from a Tier 1 school than from a Tier 3 school. And among men with MDs from Tier 1 schools, Tier 1 BAs earned less than Tier 2 and Tier 3 BAs. Among women with Tier 1 MDs, the highest earners were Tier 4 BAs.
- Some of this is just "noise" in the data due to small sample sizes for various combinations of degrees, and to her credit the author makes few degree-specific claims based on these data. But the only statistically significant degree-specific earnings differences she finds between Tier 1 and Tier 3 BA grads are among men with MD or PhD degrees from Tier 3 schools, and women with JD, MD, or PhD degrees. Even some of those statistically significant differences aren't terribly large in absolute dollar terms, And again, they could reflect differences in areas of practice in law or medicine, and different academic fields among PhDs, none of which is controlled for.
Tire 1 has 67% of most and high selective schools by barron’s. Tire 2 and 3 has 33% of most and high selective schools. The quality of school is the combination of “type of school” by Carnegie classification and “selectivity” in Barron’s.
This study by Hersch was not descriptive statistics but an regression analysis. Her model has not just a quality of school but also major, type of graduate degree and labor market characteristics. Over 177000 sample size seemed to be fine for the computation.
It might not be your or college confidential standard but is good to me.
But how many people would say that Saint Louis University and Syracuse University (Tier 1) are more prestigious than Amherst College and Williams College (Tier 2), or that Hampden-Sydney College and Sweet Briar College (Tier 2) are more prestigious than University of Michigan - Ann Arbor and University of Virginia (Tier 3), or that all of these colleges are more prestigious than Harvey Mudd College (Tier 4 since it is not listed)?
Let’s play a little game. Which of these is different: Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Harvard, Northwestern, Princeton, Saint Louis University, Stanford, Yale?
Hint: Saint Louis University is ranked #93 in US News, and has an admit rate of 63% and middle 50% ACT scores of 24-30. It’s outranked in US News by 39 public research universities, and in the Times Higher Education world university rankings it’s tied with 99 other schools for 401st to 500th place, along with the likes of the University of Northern Arizona…
I don’t mean to knock Saint Louis U. It’s a fine old Jesuit institution that has done an excellent job of teaching and training many generations of doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, business people, and more. It’s certainly an educational mainstay in the St. Louis metropolitan region which it serves with distinction/. But Tier 1 in prestige it’s not, and any classification that places it there----ahead of the likes of Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore (Tier 2) or UC Berkeley, Michigan, and UVA (Tier 3) is just nonsense.
I understand that many, perhaps even most private Research I (Carnegie classification) universities are highly selective. That doesn’t mean they all are, and to lump Saint Louis U in with a bunch of much more selective schools and say they’re all Tier 1 in prestige is just a category mistake. I also understand that on average public Research I universities are somewhat less selective than the average of private R-I’s. But again, that doesn’t mean they all are.
And if you use those misclassifications to draw conclusions about the earnings you can expect if you choose Saint Louis U (Tier 1) over UC Berkeley (Tier 3), you’ll be sadly mistaken.