Well for example I can tell you about physicists in Iran and Russia. Most went to UC Berkeley, USC, MIT, Cal Tech, UCLA, UCSD, UW, Harvard, UCSB, Stanford, CMU, Max Planc, Princeton, etc. The bottom line is it's not what school you went to, or what athletic conference the school you went to is in. Rather, it's what you can do on the job that counts.
I would strongly disagree that a big time school degree (Ivies as well as schools like Stanford, Berkeley, etc) doesn't pay its weight in opportunity. I graduated from Cornell in '10, and have had many doors open to me that I would never have had otherwise.
A few things make the Ivy degree worth it: alumni connections/being a recruiting destination, top notch faculty recommendations, and your peers. I'll explain further, but allow me to add a disclaimer beforehand: If you don't play to the advantages offered by your Ivy (et al.) education, you're not gaining really any advantage in life you wouldn't have had at BumF*** State.
First, the alumni connections and being a recruiting destination are the most important advantages you will have. People pursuing careers in things like finance and engineering benefit to a ridiculous degree from having all the top firms/corporations come to campus and actively pursue undergrads to groom for future careers at their organizations. My mother works for a Fortune 50 company as a top researcher and business woman, and Cornell is one of only a handful of schools in the country that they visit and recruit future 6 figure employees from, in both engineering and management areas. Her company is the norm, not the exception. Lets put it this way, if you went to Average U., how many classmates do you have working on Wall St. for a hedge fund or an investment bank earning a ridiculous amount of money for crashing the economy? Right, none. Why? Lehman Bros., regardless of what you think of them, recruits at Ivies, not Average U. The Ivy bias in some professions is blatant, and its not in professions where people earn jack, either.
As for Alumni, while a conversation started off by a statement at someplace random like "Oh, you went to Suchandsuch U? So did I!" is MUCH more likely to involve A)someone important/reasonably wealthy, and B) actually involve some passion about said school if its an Ivy versus say Boise State (example because I live in Boise). I've met about half a dozen Cornell grads in Idaho. 5 of them for sure earn 6 figures, all are in upper positions at their organizations, I'm positive all would hire me or find someone to hire me if I needed it (I'm in grad school, so moot point), and all are smart smart people. Its not only the great network you CAN tap into that's important (again, if you don't tap into it, that's a bit of a waste), but the level of alumni thats there. Are there rich alums of Boise State here? Absolutely, tons, but almost none are going to say to a recent grad "Oh you went to BSU too? So did I! What are you doing out here? [...] If you ever need someplace to get started (or get a job, or need me to make a call), let me know, here's my card." Why? Because most BSU grads aren't working in a position where they hire people. Many more Cornell grads are.
Second, your faculty will be of the caliber where they wrote your textbook, not where they read your textbook so they can teach the class, at top flight school. This doesn't mean other schools don't have specialties. If you're into a specific niche, the top researcher or faculty in a given area might be at a random school (or a big state school with a large faculty). There are lots of instances where that's the case, to be sure. That said, there will ALWAYS be tons of faculty at, or near, the tops of their niches at your top tier school. If you need a recommendation to a selective grad school, a think tank, etc., it will matter whether it came from Prof. Joe Schmoe at Whatsamatta U. versus Prof. Literally Wrote The Book on X at Ivy U. Even if you don't plan a career in academia, you will be better off in your education for having rubbed elbows with the top minds in a a range of fields at your big time school. Who would you rather have explain, for instance, sleep research in your Psych class? A prof. who has read all the research on the guy who coined the term "Power Nap", or the Prof that coined the term and wrote the book himself?
Finally, at top flight schools you have top flight peers. Sure, a disproportionate amount of them will be too nerdy to hold real conversations, have an above average chance of being an ugly girl (if female) and be exceedingly white and weathly, but god will they be smart and well connected (as a whole). Foreign dignitaries don't send their kids to Random Coll. CEOs don't send their kids (usually) to the local community college. If you think having class with people that have a great chance of dominating their field someday, or will stretch your mind, or can introduce you to someone who will do one of those first two things, is worth it, there's no place you should be other than the best schools. Say what you will about a school being what you make of it, it is a completely different feeling to be at a place where excellence is the norm versus somewhere that's got an abysmal graduation rate after 6 years.
One final disclaimer, I'm a grad student in Social Work at a low brow state school, so I'm not in a profession that cares much about my Cornell diploma and nor I didn't go to a school where I needed one to get in, and I've still been able to see the tremendous benefit. You do have to take the bull by the horns, like any other successful person, but its easier, and will get you farther, if you start grabbing bulls with a big time degree in your hand.
Although this was not the specific question the OP asked, I think Ivy is most useful LATER on in one's career, where money and responsibilities can be more significant. Of course landing your first job in this market is tough, but try it when you are 50.
For Investment Banking, Wealth Management at major firms, Consulting, top Law Firm partnerships and CEO career paths, Ivy league and equivalent is VERY important. Of all the Managing Directors hired by my firm in the last 18 months, all have 2 degrees from top schools, some have big law degrees as well. I think the weakest school I saw on the list was NYU, which is not weak at all. Even the guys from overseas had top American degrees. Most had at least one Ivy League degree.
no more wrote:
If you want to work for GM, fine, but if your definition of "engineering" includes software, you'd better believe that companies like Google and Facebook care about educational pedigree. A lot. (No, it's not absolutely "necessary" to have gone to an elite institution, but it practically is.)
So-- would you tell a really talented high school kid who spent 10 hours a day on the computer and is absolutely sure that he wants to be a programmer to go to:
a) Harvard or b) Berkeley?
b) Yale or b) UTAustin?
c) Dartmouth or b) UWash?
d) Brown or b) Urbana-Champaign?
Seriously now. Every single one of those state schools is miles ahead of the Ivies when it comes to computer science.
Ivy league connections matter a lot in professions where "who you know" is more important than "what you know."
If your job success depends on your ability to code, then go to the schools where they teach people how to code.
If you job success depends on persuading wealthy socialites to trust you with their money, go to the Ivies and learn about art history.
For Embedded Unix Engineers and Java S/W Engineers these are top feeders to the Silicon Valley, Orange County, and Wireless Valley semiconductor industry that I work in (not in any particular order): USC, Santa Clara, UCI, UCSB, UCSC, Cal Poly SLO, UCR, Cal Tech, San Diego St, UCD, UCSC, Cal, San Jose St, Stanford, LMU, UCLA, Pepperdine, Fresno St.
You bailed out Citibank. wrote:
Ivy league connections matter a lot in professions where "who you know" is more important than "what you know."
PRO TIP: That saying applies to EVERY profession.
It's pretty assumed, rightly or wrongly, that anyone who goes to an Ivy League school (and other places like Stanford) is going to go to graduate school anyway. So in many instances the undergraduate education is supposed to form the person you want to be, not the professional you want to be.
You bailed out Citibank. wrote:
So-- would you tell a really talented high school kid who spent 10 hours a day on the computer and is absolutely sure that he wants to be a programmer to go to:
a) Harvard or b) Berkeley?
b) Yale or b) UTAustin?
c) Dartmouth or b) UWash?
d) Brown or b) Urbana-Champaign?
I will vouch for this. Same is true for engineering programs. The ivies that do have engineering programs are not among the very top programs.
However ... it does agree with the point that where you go for undergrad is important for getting your first job.
Engineering is more of a meritocracy than other fields, however, so where you went to school becomes irrelevant after your first job.
asdfasfds wrote:
You bailed out Citibank. wrote:Ivy league connections matter a lot in professions where "who you know" is more important than "what you know."
PRO TIP: That saying applies to EVERY profession.
Does no one read anymore? Connections help in every career-- even the talent-based careers.
However, I also know a ton of asocial a__holes who are very successful because they are actually good at their job. They are not in sales. They are not in marketing. They are not selling real estate. They are not sell-side or back-end financial services.
Instead-- they are in professions where there is a big difference between the people who are competent and the people who aren't. There success does not depend on knowing people. In fact-- if more people knew them personally, they would be LESS successful.
"no more wrote:
If you want to work for GM, fine, but if your definition of "engineering" includes software, you'd better believe that companies like Google and Facebook care about educational pedigree. A lot. (No, it's not absolutely "necessary" to have gone to an elite institution, but it practically is.)
So-- would you tell a really talented high school kid who spent 10 hours a day on the computer and is absolutely sure that he wants to be a programmer to go to:
a) Harvard or b) Berkeley?
b) Yale or b) UTAustin?
c) Dartmouth or b) UWash?
d) Brown or b) Urbana-Champaign?
Seriously now. Every single one of those state schools is miles ahead of the Ivies when it comes to computer science. "
I do like how you make your point by using the 4 Ivies that focus least on their engineering schools (does Brown even have one?). UWash v Cornell? Illinois v. Princeton? Somehow I think those are much more appropriate comparisons.
As for connections v. talent/job performance, all jobs require some measure of both, but is it ever bad to have more connections?
Finding and keeping a top level job is a percentages game. You have to be in the right place at the right time, no matter how talented or connected you are. Going to an elite school is almost always going to up your chances of going where you want to go, provided you avail yourself of those resources.
Finding narrow examples where other schools might be better choices doesn't diminish the fact that by and large, an Ivy (or other top flight degree) is worth the added cost. Like I said before, other schools have people that top their respective fields, or have specialized programs that are top notch, but the top notch schools are filled with those kinds of people and programs, and attract top talent to fill them. They don't have a monopoly on premium higher education (peripherals, like alums and facilities, included), but they definitely have the lion's share.
the duke wrote:
I do like how you make your point by using the 4 Ivies that focus least on their engineering schools (does Brown even have one?). UWash v Cornell? Illinois v. Princeton? Somehow I think those are much more appropriate comparisons.
As for connections v. talent/job performance, all jobs require some measure of both, but is it ever bad to have more connections?
A friend of mine is a comp sci professor at Brown, and I know they have an engineering program.
Illinois is universally regarded as a better engineering program than any Ivy. Washington's fine, but I would have put Carnegie Mellon or Georgia Tech there instead. Both are ranked higher than any ivy. Obviously, MIT is top of the heap in engineering, so there's not much of a point comparing there. It's not that the ivy league schools can't put together a top program, but it's simply not their focus.
While it's true that connections are important, alumni connections just aren't so important in engineering. Tech tends to be startup oriented, and people move around a lot in the tech hotbeds like Silicon Valley, Boston, and more recently New York. The important connections are those you make on the job. People in tech tend not to talk about where they went to school. They always talk about where they worked.
You bailed out Citibank. wrote:
So-- would you tell a really talented high school kid who spent 10 hours a day on the computer and is absolutely sure that he wants to be a programmer to go to:
a) Harvard or b) Berkeley?
b) Yale or b) UTAustin?
c) Dartmouth or b) UWash?
d) Brown or b) Urbana-Champaign?
Seriously now. Every single one of those state schools is miles ahead of the Ivies when it comes to computer science.
I was EECS at Berkeley. I'm 42, and have worked in Silicon Valley for some companies you've heard of. (My guess is that you are quite a bit younger than I am.)
So:
- I don't have any advice for someone spending 10 hours/day programming. I wasn't that person, nor is the OP, nor most people.
- For the 99% of high school seniors who are not sure (or who are incorrect) about their future career, I'd recommend the Ivy for their undergrad degree.
- Those state schools may be miles ahead for grad research, NOT for undergrad teaching.
- Yes, if you go to Berkeley or UW or whatever *and you do very well*, you'll probably do fine. Thing is, you're MUCH more likely to do well at Harvard than at Berkeley. Cal is just waiting for you to drop out so they can replace you.
- If you want to be a grunt programmer your whole life, that's fine. If you're trying to get your startup funded ... guess where all the VCs went to school?
And many of those that care about teaching do not get tenure because, as I have been told directly on a number of occasions by more than one department chair: "Nobody gets tenure because they are good teachers." (This might be different at liberal arts colleges like Oberlin, Middelbury, etc). In fact, I am in line to not get tenure in the immediate future. I'd say my publishing is right on the edge. It could go either way. I certainly can't work more hours without being an absent father.
I stand by my comments on the general inflexibility of the academic hierarchy. There are certainly occasional outliers, but if you look at the faculty at any elite institution in any department it is pretty evident.
why is this such a complicated question? Think about it, if someone said they went to Yale or Harvard that provides a quick thumbnail sketch of that person.
You know they: A) are really smart B) come from a wealthy family C) both
If someone's resume has a community college and then 2 years at a state school you probably know they are middle class or lower, had to work part time, are possibly first generation college grad...
Ummm... wrote:
the duke wrote:I do like how you make your point by using the 4 Ivies that focus least on their engineering schools (does Brown even have one?). UWash v Cornell? Illinois v. Princeton? Somehow I think those are much more appropriate comparisons.
As for connections v. talent/job performance, all jobs require some measure of both, but is it ever bad to have more connections?
A friend of mine is a comp sci professor at Brown, and I know they have an engineering program.
Illinois is universally regarded as a better engineering program than any Ivy. Washington's fine, but I would have put Carnegie Mellon or Georgia Tech there instead. Both are ranked higher than any ivy. Obviously, MIT is top of the heap in engineering, so there's not much of a point comparing there. It's not that the ivy league schools can't put together a top program, but it's simply not their focus.
While it's true that connections are important, alumni connections just aren't so important in engineering. Tech tends to be startup oriented, and people move around a lot in the tech hotbeds like Silicon Valley, Boston, and more recently New York. The important connections are those you make on the job. People in tech tend not to talk about where they went to school. They always talk about where they worked.
Where you want to work is important too. I can tell you that most people on the east coast won't be impressed by Illinois, because they just read it as "generic state school" (even though it's not).
I certainly do not assume that if someone went to an Ivy League school they are smart. I guess I assume they are probably rich or well connected. After all, George Bush (43) went to both Yale (undergrad) and Harvard (grad). I do not think anyone considers him all that sharp. I certainly would not hire him to solve complicated problems, or to speak correct English for that matter.
People are severely overestimating the value of an ivy league education. Here are some data:
Undergraduate education of American Nobel Prize Winners in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine since 2006 (16 total): 6 Ivy, 5 state schools, 3 small LA colleges, 2 MIT (no UChicago, no Stanford, no Duke)
Undergraduate education of CEO of top 10 businesses from Forbes 500: 5 state, 2 Ivy, 1 each JHU, GT, Tufts. (No UChicago, No Stanford, No Duke)
Undergraduate education of Americans in first 10 (alphabetical order) newly elected members to the National Academy of Engineering: (7 total) 3 state, 1 Ivy, 1 small LA college, 1 USNA, 1 "general motors institute". (no stanford, UChicago, or Duke)
I could go on and on but don't want to flog a dead horse.
middle professor wrote:
People are severely overestimating the value of an ivy league education. Here are some data:
Undergraduate education of American Nobel Prize Winners in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine since 2006 (16 total): 6 Ivy, 5 state schools, 3 small LA colleges, 2 MIT (no UChicago, no Stanford, no Duke)
Undergraduate education of CEO of top 10 businesses from Forbes 500: 5 state, 2 Ivy, 1 each JHU, GT, Tufts. (No UChicago, No Stanford, No Duke)
Undergraduate education of Americans in first 10 (alphabetical order) newly elected members to the National Academy of Engineering: (7 total) 3 state, 1 Ivy, 1 small LA college, 1 USNA, 1 "general motors institute". (no stanford, UChicago, or Duke)
I could go on and on but don't want to flog a dead horse.
First of all, those are very, very limited stats. In addition, there are only a handful of Ivy League schools compared to hundreds of state universities. In addition, Ivy League and other top 10 schools tend to have much smaller student bodies than large state universities. Therefore, those stats aren't surprising at all and actually support the case that attending an Ivy/top 10 school will increase your odds of success.
middle professor wrote:
People are severely overestimating the value of an ivy league education. Here are some data:
Undergraduate education of American Nobel Prize Winners in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine since 2006 (16 total): 6 Ivy, 5 state schools, 3 small LA colleges, 2 MIT (no UChicago, no Stanford, no Duke)
...
I could go on and on but don't want to flog a dead horse.
Ivy League schools annually graduate maybe 1% of the physics majors that state schools do (I made up that stat), and yet, you tell us, they have more Nobel Prize winners than the state schools.
This was the best argument you could muster to support your position that going to an Ivy League doesn't matter?! WTF are you a professor of?
no more wrote:
- Yes, if you go to Berkeley or UW or whatever *and you do very well*, you'll probably do fine. Thing is, you're MUCH more likely to do well at Harvard than at Berkeley. Cal is just waiting for you to drop out so they can replace you.
And Brown gives their students gold stars and smiley faces instead of grades...
Of course you'll more likely to do well at an Ivy than at a state school-- at the Ivy, you are a source of revenue. The Ivies don't bite the hands that feed them. They also don't really care to push their students out of their comfort zone. Lord forbid they leave.
At a state school, the state has to spend their money to educate you. You are dispensable.
- If you want to be a grunt programmer your whole life, that's fine. If you're trying to get your startup funded ... guess where all the VCs went to school?
How many times does this need to be said?
There are some professions where "who you know" is much more important than "what you know." It is indeed important that you know people as the public face of a start-up-- where you are basically a sales/PR guy who gets really good at giving Power Point presentations and playing golf with the right people.
On the other hand, there are other professions where "what you know" is more important than "who you know." If you are going to work in one of those professions, then go to a place that will make you an expert in "what you know."
Finally-- most of the people whom I know who are good at the whole "public face/finding capital" thing were born that way. It is an innate skill-- not the sort of thing that you learn at any school-- public of Ivy.
Pretending that going to an Ivy is going to teach you how to do that is-- in my opinion-- misleading.