Undergrad education and "prestige" - Page 2

+1 to both of those things. My limited experience looking for a job after my undergrad education (at a presumably-decent top 20 in Atlanta) would indicate that employers don't really care if prospective students went to Emory or GSU--they're interested in the difficulty of your courseload and your experiences, as they're translated to your resume and personal statements (for grad school/law school). As a prospective law student, I really don't think my expensive UG education really bought me much of an edge over any other student.

PS: My experience is very limited, but I figured I'd toss in my .02 anyways.

I totally agree. Just the other day I was saying the only difference between Harvard's MBA and say, the #30 MBA, is that Harvard has 200+ years of alumni getting the next crop of graduates jobs.

I entered Columbia 15 years out of high-school after gaining quite a bit of life experience and narrowing my focus to an area of specialty. Graduating Magna with departmental honors and Phi Betta Kappa has meant mainly a great deal of personal satisfaction. In terms of professional life, it meant a career change, but in that sense it has been nothing more than another point along a very long learning curve.

The only real worth it's been in terms of prestige is making Japanese girls swoon (and they're an easily impressed bunch).

In finance, the bulk come from top 10 schools. They tend to admit more intelligent kids that have proven themselves. We also recruit heavily only from these schools. But the caveat is that if I were to come across someone that went to a state school at my firm, I kinda would think they were much more driven and intelligent than most of the top 10 kids, only because it's so hard to break in otherwise. As for those with MBAs, names mean even MORE.

The quality of the education you receive is not the issue here--it is people's perceptions of your ability and smarts. As another poster said, once you're in the middle of your career, your undergrad alma mater won't matter.

But people still have serious bias for certain schools. For what it's worth, I think it's stronger here on the east coast than on the west. If you want to get to grad school it matters to a point. A Harvard 2.0 with crappy letters of rec. will not be chosen over a 4.0 with good letters from a state school. But all things equal...

And the Ivy degree can get your foot in the door more easily in business.

That said, if you have the ability and take advantage of opportunities and work your ass off, a degree from a non-Ivy won't hold you back.

b

I went to an Ivy League college for seven years and found I gained immeasurably from the prestige and recognition. Eventually, I decided to enroll too, but they would have none of that. While I was initially depressed, it hasn't really made a difference since no one really asks whether or not you were registered when you tell them where you went to school.

I'm still a student so I can't speak from personal experience, but my brother is a recent graduate of a top ivy. While he's opted for grad school, where he has landed a pretty "prestigious" internship, many of his friends are making 6 figures right out of undergrad. It's difficult to determine conclusively whether his friends' "good fortune" can be attributed to their degree or to the fact that these universities typically draw many students who have the right qualities to be successful. However, I have definitely seen my brother pick up a number of very useful social skills (and he was pretty good to begin with) which I feel were developed particularly because of the unique academic and social environment which these schools provide.

O please... people who tell you that Ivy's are shit didn't get in or they did, and couldn't afford it so now they're jealous. No, they aren't always the best schools in the universe, but you'll get amazing world class profs that won't necessarily be at lesser schools with less money and less prestige. Also, your classmates are likely to be smarter and better connected. Ultimately you want to be in dialogue with good people. Yes, a lot of them will be total nerds, but at least they'll be the best book nerds the world has to offer. You'll also find a number of very intelligent, talented people that you can become friends with.

Ya, going to a state school would be way more fun, but I wouldn't automatically berate the Ivy league. In I Banking and Law, the statistics really don't lie. Connemara included schools like Stanford, so if you're talking about the top schools, some of which are Ivy's, then yes, it actually does matter a lot for employment. Undergrad probably not so much. However, like I said, it's about the people. Anyone who thinks your education will be just as good at a university where you need like an 1100 SAT and the school's main achievement is being a football factory, you probably won't be likely to find the better minds of your generation there.

I don't agree. I am pretty sure there's a higher concentration of great achievers from top universities.

20-30 public universities had better produce a lot of impressive people, just because the statistical chances, given the enormous sizes of some of these schools make it inevitable.

I'm talking about the average person at an Ivy being better off than the average public school person.

The average person at an Ivy league will network with many people that have "old money" and are members of families that are already well established. They will also have a huge alumni network happy to provide help in job placement. If you are in need of help, cannot cut your own path, this is something you will need. However, state schools? Yes, because U of Michigan...I mean, who would hire an attorney or MBA from there, right? Or see a U of M med school physician. And who would hire an economist from the U of Chicago, right? Just someone that could not get into Harvard, right? And MIT...what a bunch of know nothings! Stanford? Forget about it! There is no doubt attending an Ivy is very valuable, for much more than just the education. There is also no doubt that the long history of say, hiring for Wall St. from the Ivies, is a help to the graduates. But the thought that if you get your MIS from say, U of Arizona (Top 5 MIS programs for nearly 20 years straight), you will not get heavily recruited by Silicon Valley is just wrong. Ivy has its definite non-educational perks, no doubt mixes you with the world's movers and shakers, but educational rigor? You can get that at more than just the Ivy League.

When we recruit for our technical positions (software engineering mostly), we find a much higher percentage of students in certain schools that are qualified and do well in the long term. This is over a 14-year period since I've been involved. The record over 25 years is about the same. Top schools consistently include Caltech, CMU, Cornell, Harvey Mudd, MIT, and Rice. The rest are hit-and-miss, varying from year to year, and doesn't really depend on whether it's an Ivy or a state school, though some are starting to be consistent (Cal Poly SLO, Stanford, UIUC), and some of this certainly is due to us learning how to work a particular school's recruiting system. We've found that there are always good people at each school who will rise to the top no matter what their circumstances. It's just that the good schools have higher concentrations of these people. --Andre

Umm... aren't UofM, UChicago, Stanford and MIT private schools? I'm pretty sure I mentioned top-non Ivy schools (like when I wrote Stanford). Also, there's a big difference between UCBerkley and Ohio St.

Also, I never said your schooling will be better at any Ivy. With the exception of a great prof, you can probably learn just as much by reading good books. My thing is meeting people and networking. For me, there's no better places for that than the Ivy's, and schools like Stanford, Duke, UChicago etc...

O please...re-read my post and you'll see that I, for one, have never written that the Ivy's are "shit", because I don't believe it.

There is some truth to what Violinist wrote--not that being at the same school as "amazing world-class profs" is worth much, but being around outstanding students who push you and teach each other can be an incredible experience.

My own experience in grad school, at an Ivy League school incidentally, is that my advisor was almost totally inaccessible. He was so busy traveling the world convincing people that he was one of "the better minds of your generation" that I spoke with him for a total of 2 hours 50 minutes during my first 3 years of grad school. He carefully cultivates a reputation as a teacher, but during my 5 years in grad school, he taught class for a grand total of 1 semester. He team-taught the class with an assistant prof who took care of all the paperwork, office hours, and lectured when The Big Man was out of town, i.e. the assistant prof did all the work except for delivering half a dozen lectures. So passing a great mind on his way to the airport is unlikely to contribute much to your education. The best thing about my experience was learning from all the amazing people, who, like me at the time, were star-struck by the man's reputation.

Violinist, in your subsequent post, you answer the wrong question for someone considering which school to attend for an undergraduate education. Students shouldn't care about the statistics regarding high-achievers who graduated from X school. Students should ask, "what value does X school add to my educational experience?" The answer is a very individual one. Personally, I believe many students are best served by a small, highly selective liberal arts college, where the profs are amazing and generally very accessible. The disadvantage of such a school is a relative lack of advanced classes and research opportunities during senior year. And before jumping to any conclusions about my background, you might like to know that my experience also includes a BS from a highly selective, small school.