I think this is new. Harvard is marvelous, but you don't have to go there to get your foot in the door of life.
Great find. Thanks for posting. Some time ago on this board, or the "previous" one, someone (John Bear?) posted an item about CEO's and how many were basically graduates from average or state colleges. Anyone remember that reference? Best wishes----Jim
So, the next link in the rationale would be that COST is more important than NAME for the talented student. Wow! And to think, I've been saying this for years!
I know that similar posts have been made but this perhaps has a different take on the subject. The practical importance of the prestige of the school attended has been a concern for some so...this post. I don't know that Dr. Bear has a definite view on the matter.
I'm too old for it to matter if I were to graduate Harvard or Hobart. But if I were younger then I think I'd have concerns similar to those expressed by others. I dunno what's the best strategy but it's something to think about. Moneyed people like Bush and Kerry go for the name schools. I read that Chelsea Clinton got a 100K job right out of school. I don't care about those people as they don't need care. I'm thinking of the Joey and Janie Nobodies. What they should do to improve their lot is what I think about. Not lecturing you there but taking the opportunity to dump some thoughts onto the board.
Also the level of education might matter. The study was concerned with bachelors degree graduates. Law or graduate business might be a different story. Actually, I can tell you that for employment in major Wall Street type firms, the law school matters a LOT. Some major firms refuse even to INTERVIEW grads of any school but their certain pets, Harvard, Yale, and the like.
nosborne48: And not only that, but in many cases you must be a top-10% Order of the Coif, Bar Review Editor-type to even get an interview at top firms at any metro area--which is why good-old middle-of-the-class me is in private practice (although, the best attorneys I've ever met--the real stars--were just like me, private practice people who didn't attend the best schools or get the best grades, they just now eat those types for lunch in court!)
I have a theory about that. It's not so much that the big firms think that the Harvard Stars are necessarily SMARTER or will be better LAWYERS; it's that students who do exceedingly well and are law review and such have proven that they are unusually ambitious, willing to do grunt work work 60 plus hours a week and have no life. Thus, they will be billing machines!
One issue I have with the article is some of the "other" schools that the article implies are mediocre or for average students. There is absolutley nothing unusual about Grinnell, Macalester or St. Olaf out-performing some of the so-called "elite" schools, because those schools are every bit as elite as the better-known "top schools", in many cases having higher admissions standards and being every bit as expensive and exclusive. In part, that article preys upon the ignorance of the reader about elite institutions that just happen to be smaller.
I'm sure that she's a very bright girl, but I question whether it's just her schooling that opens doors for her. More likely it's the fact that her mom is a Senator and her dad is a former President. Plus the fact that she grew up in the White House, where half the government and many foreign leaders felt like her god-parents and are no doubt sentimental about her. The lady has connections. That's probably what employers want to tap. I mean, Chelsea could probably call Chirac and he'd take her call. Unfortunately, if Joe and Jane Nobody had a realistic chance of being admitted to an elite university, then it wouldn't be elite any longer. The prestige schools keep their tone precisely because they keep the riff-raff out and let the right sort of students in. In many cases that means scholastic aptitude, in other cases it means children of powerful parents. But whatever, the thing that sets these schools apart is that they are extremely selective. So I don't think that it's realistic to suggest that the typical prospective DL student enroll in a prestige school. They simply can't. They would never be accepted.
There is no question that a motivated individual can succeed regardless of which school they attend (or even regardless of whether they attend any school). Examples of this are too numerous to mention. From the opposite perspective, there are manymanymany people who have graduated from Harvard or Stanford or Oxford or any other top-flight school who have totally destroyed their lives, gone to jail, gone broke, been disgraced (or whatever criteria you care to mention regarding success/failure). My own opinion is that this is not only common knowledge, it is common sense. Every school produces people who turn out badly. Every town and city produces people who turn out badly. Every country turns out people who turn out badly. I think that in the end it's a question of probability. A person who is able to perform on a level that allows them entrance in Harvard and a person who is able to perform on a level that allows them to graduate Harvard (or any other top level school) is simply more likely to succeed than some other person. As with all other measures of probability there are exceptions to the rule. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good thing. If it ever changes then we're all in trouble. Jack
Yeah, that would be my point. I am not always clear in what I type for trying to be concise. I should also say that I'm not carrying a grudge against the named people or people like them. It's just that they do not need advocates.
