Darien, thanks. It’s nice to get a pointer. Here’s the actual paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322.v5.pdf I find several problems with study, not enough time to elaborate, but here’s a list: - Success != Income, though some on this forum may disagree… - This data is old. Back in the 70s, Ivies like Yale were notoriously not merit-based in many of their acceptances. (Think nepotism, ability to pay, vietnam, etc.) - A direct quote from the conclusion: “The characteristics of schools that influence students’ subsequent income appear to be better captured by average tuition costs than by the school’s average SAT score. Indeed, we find that students who attend colleges with higher average tuition costs tend to earn higher income years later.” Maybe I need to read the whole study, but this sounds to contradict to their primary conclusion, since we all know that the Ivies are more expensive.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent, that is also an unfair statement. some > people start off in life in more unfortunate > situations. however, we must give praise and > respect to those that earned the right to tell a > girl…“i’m from harvard”. a few months ago i was at a bar on newbury street and the guy standing behind me used a similar line to pick up a girl. later on he went on to say something to the effect of: “my degree says BU though… they didnt let me get my degree from there because the said it was only one course. but the course was at harvard taught by a harvard professor.” so funny.
I think this study’s conclusion is that there’s no special discontinuity/magic between Ivy and subIvy institutions. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater tho. Certainly college counts. If you take a top high-school grad and put them into a 2-year HVAC certificate program at the local community college, they won’t do as well (at least not during bull markets 
) as they would have at an Ivy – or at Berkeley or MIT or UMich or any other subIvy. But at the same time I don’t think that the apparent significant correlation between tuition and lifetime earnings invalidates the failure to reject the Ivys-arent-special null hypothesis. (Did I score a quadruple negative in there?) But also you’re back to regressing income against school characteristic (tuition), without controlling for the student. > This data is old. Back in the 70s, Ivies like Yale were notoriously not merit-based Funny you mention this. In the past year New Yorker looked at Harvard’s (and by extension, Yale and other Ivys’) admission process. Pre-1900 it was old boy network. Then they went hard over to merit-based, and by WW-I their incoming classes were 25% Jewish. To tone it down they began interviews of all applicants to look for “leadership” qualities, the justification being that they wanted to produce leaders of societies, not test-taking robots. Some choice interview-report quotes appeared, such as “too short” and “large ears”. Matriculating class demographics adjusted. They apparently are happy with using such interviews to identify leadership potential and the practice continues today – it wasn’t discontinued after the 1970s.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > however, we must give praise and > respect to those that earned the right to tell a > girl…“i’m from harvard”. oh the stories of the h-bomb. any girl who falls for that you dont want.
Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just got finished readin’ some Marxian historian – Pete Garrison probably. You’re gonna be convinced of that ‘til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year – you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-Revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization… Wood drastically – Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.’ You got that from Vickers, ‘Work in Essex County,’ page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don’t do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
lol. love it!
that’s the best scene in the movie imo.
DarienHacker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t think that > the apparent significant correlation between > tuition and lifetime earnings invalidates the > failure to reject the Ivys-arent-special null > hypothesis. > If you can parse this sentence, you almost surely have an ivy league degree and will have no trouble passing the most byzantine of CFA-exams.
DirtyZ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I think the educational quality for > undergrad is not much different from an Ivy league > school and the upper echelon of other good schools > (some of which are state schools). In some cases, it’s worse. Tons of courses at these places are taught by graduate students. When I was a graduate student teaching classes, I gave a killer first exam and gave out lots of D’s and F’s. When I brought the tests in, I put a stack of drop cards on the front desk. Then I gave this speech about “If you failed this test, I would like to give you the good news, but I can’t. The most likely grade for you to get in this class is the grade on the first test. If you would be happy with that, stick around, otherwise here are the drop cards” It got rid of all those pesky people who would ask me questions during office hours and freed up lots of time for my dissertation. It probably wasn’t the best thing to do for those kids though… > Having said > that, I think the best undergrad education is > found at the elite liberal arts colleges. Go Middlebury! > I’d > also note that if you graduate from a top 15 > school as an undergrad it opens significantly more > doors early on, although down the road school > matters less and accomplishment matters more.
In reality, if you were below-average at any Ivy, you would have a hard time getting people to look at your resume. People look for top-performers. Period. Speaking as an Ivy grad… networking benefits? Perhaps… but I’ve never been able to leverage the Ivy network of my alma mater for any job. Like someone else posted… in my first job out of school, I probably had the same salary as a state school grad. Prestige & opportunity? There is some cachet to it, so maybe it helped in terms of initial credibility, but once you’re in the interview, it’s a level playing field. After the first two or three jobs (5-7 years), I don’t know if it makes much of a difference in most fields. Perhaps it works as an initial screening tool in competitive fields to make sure you are of the right pedigree. It signals to potential employers that you would be a conscientious worker. Nothing more - the rest is up to you. The primary place I’ve seen it make a difference is campus recruiting for i-banking / PE, but those who went to state schools just have to hustle more. I graduated at a bad time in the economy, and had to interview for all of my senior year before I got offers (as an average student). The funny thing was that every once in a while you’d meet someone at an Ivy and you ask them how the *#($ they ever got it because they seem so idiotic. Alternatively, I’ve also met some brilliant people, sometimes they flaunt it, other times you’d be surprised.
fya, the aforementioned New Yorker article: “Getting In”: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge
I think the point should be made that the impact of an ivy league education various greatly with the discipline pursued. For example, in medicine it really doesn’t matter where you do your undergrad, just how you score on your mcats. Alternatively, like the poster above me referenced, in a field such as ibanking, the program is so structured that its tough to get your foot in the door unless you go to a target school.
stylemog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that’s the best scene in the movie imo. agreed.
“For example, in medicine it really doesn’t matter where you do your undergrad, just how you score on your mcats.” My mother (Dr. HSA) used to be the chair of her hospital’s med school admissions committee and I can tell you this is categorically false. Transcript is 1st, MCATs a distant 2nd, and undergrad institution absolutely matters.
This thread is pointless to people who aren’t hung up on where their competition went to school. Are Ivy Leaguers education exagerrated, probably. I think the people who worry about themeselves and bettering themselves physically, socially and intellectually do better than people in general, Ivy league grad or not. They surely make more money if their focused on that and nothing else. I’ve met a number of immigrant liqour store owners who are multimillionaires same as my old boss who went Dartmouth and made 3 million in one year managing a fixed income fund. I’ve also met drug dealers who made 100,000 a month before retiring and buying a couple of Jamba Juice franchises. Each I’m sure is focused on getting ahead using the tools they had available, not worrying about where their competition went to school. The people who get ahead are about getting things done in real world business situations. That is something you can’t learn in classroom. Like most of the things in life that give you an edge IMO.
HoldSideAnalyst Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “For example, in medicine it really doesn’t matter > where you do your undergrad, just how you score on > your mcats.” > > My mother (Dr. HSA) used to be the chair of her > hospital’s med school admissions committee and I > can tell you this is categorically false. > Transcript is 1st, MCATs a distant 2nd, and > undergrad institution absolutely matters. definitely agree with HSA. where you do your undergrad degree almost always matters. one thing that’s abundantly clear about this thread is that the people who went to top colleges generally don’t bother to debate this on this thread. maybe it’s because they’ve been through the experience and know what kinds of opportunities a top tier education creates, and there’s just no point in talking about it because actions speak louder than words. in comparison, it’s the people that didn’t go to ivy league schools that are most vociferous about their idea that ivy league schools are overrated and “not worth it”…as if they would really know
hobbes928 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bmwhype Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > MFE Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > are you talking about ivy as in the > conference > > or > > > top 15 schools. > > > > > > plenty of schools that are hard to get into > but > > > are not in the “ivy league” > > > > > > duke, stanford, cal tech, chicago, mit, etc… > > > > > > anyhow, ivy/top schools gets you a good gig > > right > > > out of school and carries a little weight > after > > 5 > > > years but after 20 years, it’s not about what > > > school you went to. not many forturne 500 > CEOs > > > with less then 20 years of exp. > > > > who said MIT is not an ivy? > > > Ivy leagues are basically your oldest schools in > U.S. history. Thus, they’re located around the > east coast before manifest destiny, around the > earlier established towns such as NY, NJ, CT, PA, > MA, and RI. Ivy leagues schools are referred as > such because of their history and not prestige. > If you go by prestige, I agree, MIT, Stanford, U > Chicago etc. are on par with Ivy’s education. ditto…
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > one thing that’s abundantly clear about this > thread is that the people who went to top colleges > generally don’t bother to debate this on this > thread. maybe it’s because they’ve been through > the experience and know what kinds of > opportunities a top tier education creates, and > there’s just no point in talking about it because > actions speak louder than words. in comparison, > it’s the people that didn’t go to ivy league > schools that are most vociferous about their idea > that ivy league schools are overrated and “not > worth it”…as if they would really know didnt you go to an ivy? what are you doing debating then
The ivy worship is a Euro-Canadian thing. They (Europeans or Canadians) don’t know about the existence of other equally or even better regarded programs in the US so they think that the ivy schools are IT. I always ask these kinds of people if they ever heard of Swathmore College. The vast majority says No. Well, the thing is that to get into Swathmore is even harder than to get into Yale or Harvard for that matter. Thus, the ivy allure is mostly reserved for non-US residents.
stylemog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > numi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > one thing that’s abundantly clear about this > > thread is that the people who went to top > colleges > > generally don’t bother to debate this on this > > thread. maybe it’s because they’ve been through > > the experience and know what kinds of > > opportunities a top tier education creates, and > > there’s just no point in talking about it > because > > actions speak louder than words. in comparison, > > it’s the people that didn’t go to ivy league > > schools that are most vociferous about their > idea > > that ivy league schools are overrated and “not > > worth it”…as if they would really know > > > didnt you go to an ivy? what are you doing > debating then well, sometimes it’s easy to get caught up in these things, but starting with my post above, i’m trying to take more of an observational stance rather than to get into a heated discussion on these topics. like it’s been said, the facts are the facts, right?