I want to be rich. Should I get an Ivy-league degree in Economics or a state degree in engineering?

Both. First earn the undergraduate engineering degree from top public, then a few years afterward, the MBA from an Ivy. Great combination!

Definitely econ at the ivy. You're not going to impress anyone with a 4.0 from Redneck State University. You'll come out of school making $50k and peak at $150k if you're lucky.

Consulting route won't be easy or fun, but you could very well be making $200k within the first 3 or so years. Even if you decide not to go into consulting or banking, you will have a lot more options.

If finance and banking are your end game, Ivy is where you need to start. The finance and banking world is a big time meritocracy. Ivy degrees are a prerequisite for a lot of firms and at other firms are a prerequisite for promotion to executive level positions.

State school engineering and an MBA are a good combination for climbing the corporate ladder at an industrial/tech company. But the big money is always in the financial sector.

Precious Roy wrote:

If finance and banking are your end game, Ivy is where you need to start. The finance and banking world is a big time meritocracy. Ivy degrees are a prerequisite for a lot of firms and at other firms are a prerequisite for promotion to executive level positions.

State school engineering and an MBA are a good combination for climbing the corporate ladder at an industrial/tech company. But the big money is always in the financial sector.

I understand what you are saying and am sure you know more about this than I do, but if something is a meritocracy, would you not be selected and promoted based on your ability and not whether you chose to go to an Ivy League school?

Certainly if someone went to a selective State Uni and got top grades they could have gone to an Ivy League school.

It seems like what you are describing certainly goes on, but cannot be described as a meritocracy.

I currently work as a ibanking analyst a few years out of undergrad. I can tell you that while ivies and other top schools may have tougher competition internally, mediocre state schools send very, very few kids into consulting/Wall Street type fields. You have to be an outstanding student and really go out of your way to network into interviews, making it a bit of a crapshoot. On the other hand, good but not great students at top schools or even top state schools (which was my case) will easily get looks from banks.

If you want to be rich you need to find ways to gain leverage over people and be very good at negotiating.

You don't need any fancy schooling.

Get the best engineering degree that you can followed by an MBA. Then at some point start your own company.

The modern notion of meritocracy comes from the British use of civil service exams to determine who gets what level of job. It is essentially the act of relying on academic achievement above all else to determine who is best for the job. People with 5-10 years working in the trenches of finance/banking in smaller markets who went to lesser universities could probably out perform any ivy grad coming into a big finance institution. But in a meritocracy, that is irrelevant. It is arbitrarily decided that the students from top colleges are the ones that should get the opportunities.

THe other day I had lunch with a guy I coached at Cornell who transferred in from a Big 10 school. He said, "Thank God, you helped me come to Cornell."

This guy is a real go-getter with his own startup that is funded by a billionaire now. He's still in his 20s and very accomplished.

I responded, "What the hell are you talking about?You would have been successful no matter where you graduated from."

He said, "THere is no way I would have got my banking job (He did banking for a year or two and then started his own startup) from ***(Big 10 school). I was ranked in the top 10 in my major but the banks just don't hire from there without an act of God."

I personally believe he'd have been successful no matter what but he says otherwise.

However, a school like Cornell and many like it have a great alumni system, and it doesn't hurt when looking for work and a graduate from your school puts in a good word for you.

Hinckley's Friend wrote:

Both. First earn the undergraduate engineering degree from top public, then a few years afterward, the MBA from an Ivy. Great combination!

This. Ivy undergrad degrees are way overrated. Only slightly more useful than a state degree, but lots more expensive. On the other hand, an MBA from an Ivy or similarly high ranked school is worth the investment.

1) look at ARWU 2013 for the top ranks for engineering schools. It's mostly Cali, AZ, WA now due to weapons and NASA drones... I.E. people want to live in a place with nice weather all year around. But nationally, engineering undergrad programs are pretty standard and same same, teach from the same books, etc., so even the undergrad Engr prgm at a teachers college should be competitive.

2) Profs no longer give test q's from the textbook because websites have the answers, and TAs have passed around the publisher's odd/even answerbook PDFs. Instead profs get together and author unique questions for each midterm and each final, per class term, never re-using problems nor substituting parameters. Realize that ALL profs were pimple-faced, geeky virgins (some still virgins) not too long ago themselves so they know wtf is going on.

3) HS courses, AP, SAT, etc. is just rote memorization of 1,2, and 3 step problems. Any chimp on METH in America can have a HS 5.0 GPA and ace every AP class. To challenge yourself sign up for college classes at your local Jr Coll's 'Middle College' and get a jump on real engineering math & physics involving a dozen or so steps.

No one who's being serious with themselves can consider THAT to be the definition of a meritocracy - unfortunately having a degree from an Ivy or other top school is not a true demonstration of merit; in many cases it's a demonstration that you grew up in a privileged environment and were lucky enough to have the opportunities that brought you there.

The scenario you describe is not one in which people are promoted or hired on any true notion of merit.

That said, you're right about everything other than the definition of meritocracy - at the end of the day, in just about every field, connections will always be incredibly important.

Precious Roy wrote:

The modern notion of meritocracy comes from the British use of civil service exams t

No it was not England. China invented the Civil Service and Examintation system when England was populated by primitives with bones inserted into their nostrls, and gems up their anuses.

Why do you need school? Marry a rich woman.

If it were a state school like Cal or Michigan, it would be different, but because it isn't, go for an Ivy (or even to a top 10 non-Ivy). You obviously aren't dying to major in electrical engineering and that's going to negatively impact your academic performance, and at least at an Ivy, you'll have the opportunity to major in something more interesting without it negatively impacting your future job options. If you go to a non-top state school, there won't be any on-campus recruiting for the jobs you're interested int. At an Ivy, you're also more likely to come into contact with alumni who work at your target companies and who can refer you.

Also, the fact that your school doesn't send many kids to ivies probably is NOT a good thing when it comes to your chances of getting accepted.

Wherever you go make sure you actually learn something. I have an undergrad in economics from a respectable to 30 school and just made a move from my last job to get away from MBAs that don't know anything. The three people running the show had MBAs from Yale, Oxford, and Stanford. I was appalled that not one of them understood the concepts of compound interest or loan amortization. Two really simple concepts yet none of them had heard of the concepts. What the do the teach at these places and who the hell are they letting in?

Even more amazing was 2 of them still couldn't figure out loan amortization after I tried to repeatedly explain it for months. The one from Stanford was baffled by compound interest and couldn't grasp it. Eventually I gave up on explaining these basic concepts.

The kicker was we worked at a lending company and they couldn't figure out why we had so many bad loans.

Wherever you go make sure you actually learn something. I have an undergrad in economics from a respectable to 30 school and just made a move from my last job to get away from MBAs that don't know anything. The three people running the show had MBAs from Yale, Oxford, and Stanford. I was appalled that not one of them understood the concepts of compound interest or loan amortization. Two really simple concepts yet none of them had heard of the concepts. What the do the teach at these places and who the hell are they letting in?

Even more amazing was 2 of them still couldn't figure out loan amortization after I tried to repeatedly explain it for months. The one from Stanford was baffled by compound interest and couldn't grasp it. Eventually I gave up on explaining these basic concepts.

The kicker was we worked at a lending company and they couldn't figure out why we had so many bad loans.

In your father's day you picked Ivy or State. In the past 20 years you choose from the University of California System, Top Privates + Ivy, and State. The UC System, Cal Tech, and 9 of 12 Pac-12 (aka "PAcademic-9") schools are today the national braintrust for defense, energy, deep space, computers, and aerospace.