This is not what these studies measure, but people in Academia are much more likely to have gone to elite grad schools (in their respective fields, which is not the same as undergrad rankings of course). And, in my experience (Stanford undergrad, MIT PhD, currently UChicago postdoc), elite grad schools predominantly select people from elite undergrad institutions. It's possible to get into a great grad program from a non-elite school, but it's much harder, while someone like me in the middle of my class at Stanford was able to get into good grad schools without too much trouble.
This is probably not just due to snobbery; it's much more likely for the admissions committee to have heard of your recommenders and such. If you do research with a famous professor at a non-elite school you'd probably have similar results, but the barrier is a bit higher.
That's almost certainly true, but interestingly, the list of elite schools does get shuffled up a bit at the grad level. Few undergrads would consider UCSD more of a prize than any Ivy, but as a graduate research program, it would be considered very elite. Berkeley arguably has more top 5 PhD programs than any other university, but again, when two high school students bump into each other in the hallway, whip out a ruler, and measure admissions packages, Harvard is definitely a longer and thicker acceptance letter than Berkeley.
I do remember an interesting flurry or articles from a study a couple of years ago suggesting it doesn't matter much where you go to college provided you major in STEM. From my limited observations and experience, I'd say that's true - I doubt a strong CS major from UCSD experiences any real disadvantage vis-a-vis more selective ivies, but an international relations major from Yale definitely has a leg up on securing those prestigious early career internships and positions.
Networking is one of the main reasons when going to college.
While education, the courses and knowledge is really really, really important. Networking is just as important as that.
Your social skills really matter in your life after college and it might help you paying your student debt.
Interestingly there are significant differences across fields, and the data do indicate that this effect in mathematics, for instance, is much smaller than in the humanities.
My anectodal experience tells me no. I went to a CUNY (NYC system college) school with a 99% acceptance rate and sub 20% graduation rate. It was more important that I lived in New York than that I went to this specific school. I was able to find internships which got me into the industry, network with folks from different industries, and generally have a lot of opportunities available to me. Also, I graduated in 4 years with no student debt and low overall expenses, I was able to pay my way with a part time job and government subsidies. I've given way more in taxes than what it cost the city and federal government to send me to school.
It may not be an elite Yale or Stanford education, but most folks don't have that anyway.
>Third, to admissions officers of elite colleges: Do better. America’s most selective colleges can, it seems, change the lives of minorities and low-income students. But they’re still bastions of privilege. They enroll more students from the top 1 percent of the income scale than the entire bottom 60 percent. In this way, elite institutions are like factories of social mobility being used as storage facilities for privilege; they have the potential to use their space to manufacture opportunity at scale, but mostly they clear out real estate for the already rich, who are going to be fine, anyway.
I wonder if this this advice would actually be harmful. The real cachet of the elite colleges is not so much their elite teaching, but that the elite go to them. Going to these colleges as a non-elite kind of "adopts" you into the elite and has great benefits for these non-elites. However, if these elite colleges basically become a reflection of the United States where the vast majority of people are non-elite, these elite colleges will lose their aura over time. The elite won't really be affected by this as they have other social networks to connect with fellow elite. However, the non-elite will lose this important way of networking with the elite.
They should run a location effect study to accompany this.
Is it better to have a high SAT score and go to San Jose State vs low SAT score and go to (say) UVa (University of Virginia which is a good school far away from Silicon Valley) to get a job in Silicon Valley.
It matters especially if you're not from the US.
You could've gone to the best university in your country, but if it's not a top institution in the US or a handful of others (ETH and a few more in top positions according to Qs Rankings) I feel like most big names in tech won't even look at your resume.
Anedoctal example, but I graduated with a decent mark from the top CS department in my country (106/110) as an UG, I couldn't even apply for a masters in top universities in the UK (let alone US) since their requirements are skewed towards not accepting people from my country (if you came from the UK you needed a 2:1, which if I remember correctly is around 70%, if you came from my country you needed 109/110, which is over 99%. Scores for other EU countries like Spain and France were converted to their 70%). This led me to going into a masters in my country, which will most likely hinder me from getting a PhD in any top institution in the EU just because of the country I was born in, even though some of the professors in my current masters degree course are top researchers in their fields.
So yes, I feel like where you go to school earlier in life greatly influences where you will end up in the future; and even more so, where you were born influences your chances of making it anywhere in life.
This is not to say that I am some unrecognised genius, I feel like I am a "median" CS student with a poor math background to booth; but at the same time I absolutely feel like a lot of talent will go unrecognised and won't have the same chances in life others have just because they happened to be born in a country rather than another (even more so after having studied in the UK for a year and having met people who went on to work for top companies when they clearly were subpar compared to people studying in my own country)
You could have a Github portfolio that has one or two personal projects that demonstrates a proficiency in the language/framework needed at the company you're applying?
I've interviewed plenty of people in SF - candidates from top tier universities like MIT. And have passed on them. They simply lacked a proficiency in doing the basics (Rails in this case).
There's so many opportunity to be had by just showing very specific proficiencies with a personal project.
Skip all of the hoops you've outlined above, because they never matter anyway. A majority of candidates never have a portfolio, it's the biggest opportunity that is missed by most.
I'm an Australian with no degree who got poor marks in high school, and I got a job at Microsoft (software engineer doing C++ dev and some light reverse-engineering) after about 5 years of freelance work, with zero qualifications.
IIRC my education history came up once in the interview process (I was interviewed by 6 different people that day and only one brought it up), and that part of the conversation basically consisted of:
Interviewer: "You don't have a degree?"
Me: "No, I'm self-taught."
Interviewer: "Oh okay, that's cool."
Literally nobody that I work with talks or cares about where you went to school or what your grades were. YMMV I guess.
I think that we idealize that it doesn't matter, but at a certain level, it does matter - even decades later. I went to no-name university and graduated with a high GPA in CS in '95. My work experience since has been solid, and I have some respectable accomplishments, but places like Google and Facebook don't even notice me. The only "black mark" on my resume that I can imagine would be holding me back is "graduated from no-name university".
Counter-example: I went to a state university, graduating with a degree in Computer Engineering in '89. I've had a number of jobs over the years - several startups, but also roles at Sun Microsystems, Yahoo!, and (currently) Google. While I don't feel like my choice of university has ever particularly helped me, it also hasn't (that I'm aware) hurt me - I've never gotten an inkling that I was passed over for a role because I didn't go to a top-tier school.
My impression was that that they spam every CS grad over LinkedIn trying to hoover up as many engineers as they can. I'd be surprised your school even comes into play. Usually it's more like, if you're from a top30 school +5 otherwise they don't even have an opinion.
I suspect I'm kinda in the middle, UC Davis represent! Great school, glad to have attended, but not really seen as a Stanford, Berkeley, UIUC, or CMU tier either.
A professor of mine mentioned a study by Bell/AT&T from mid 20th century which found that the success of their executives was correlated with how well they did at the school they went to, and less with which school they went to. I took that class in 1988, and the study was already old by then.
I don't think this is always the case. I graduated in 2014, from a small state university with a CS degree and a decent GPA. Last year after only have a couple years in the field with a big US based Tech company, and I landed interviews with Amazon and Google while searching for jobs after being laid off. I think it really just depends on location, and probably a million other things.
There is a lot of talk about elite universities offering full-tuition to those that make under a certain income, but what this ignores is usually you have to be in a certain income bracket to obtain certain SAT, AP scores along with the right ECs and upper division college prep courses. This usually means attending the best private, public, or STEM magnent school in your state, which sadly most families in those income brackets cannot afford. The people getting into these elite schools come from elite secondary schools and the poor people that can't attend these schools are usually excluded from admissions to elite colleges. So the "free tuition" advertisement is nice, but in practice their admissions standards do a good job of keeping such poor folks out.
This is at best a half truth. Going to these schools helps, but it is not necessary.
There are an abundance of people who are qualified to get into elite universities at less-than-best schools in a given state.
There are three main issues that I see:
1. They self-select out of applying. They know lots of smart people, but they don’t know anyone else who applied, so those elite schools must be impossible to get into.
2. Their teachers/administrators have no idea how to write a strong recommendation for a stellar student. The applicants don’t know how to choose people who can write good recommendations.
3. The applicants don’t know about the small tweaks in their extracurriculars that will make them standout (e.g., demonstrating leadership, vision, etc.), and/or they don’t know how to write about their considerable achievements in a compelling way (e.g., I’ve heard an incredible and incredibly modest person saying that their considerable achievements were not worth discussing on an appication because “Well, what else would you do? Isn’t this just normal?” Answer, no, it was not normal.).
Note also that plenty of the “poor” students have been recruited in one way or another, with athletes probably being the biggest recruiting pool.
It is not mandatory to be in a certain income bracket to get a high score on your SAT or on your AP exams.
If the universities want to help low income students, and are only able to help a certain number of them given the resources they have available, academic merit is the best way to do it.
Have to be? Or tend to be. I think we often overlook that richer families tend to have a lot better parenting. It's not just about money. Good parenting is arguably more important than being wealthy.
I think "where" you study matters, but for a different reason. It's not the prestige of the school, it's the geographic proximity to potential jobs.
I'm (still) trying to find a job in New Zealand, Australia, or Canada. Despite an MEng and 4 years work experience to satisfy immigration, companies aren't interested in interviewing people who aren't already physically there and have the right to work.
The only solution seems to be to get a student visa by joining a course in underwater basket weaving, and continue looking for a job locally when physically present. It's a terrible misuse of the visa system, but there seems to be no other way.
I believe if you want knowledge, then the answer is no. College can teach you a lot and show a ton. That said, ultimately, you will have to become your own teacher anyway and you can do it in your own room at your own house. But if your goal is getting a job, you absolutely want the biggest names (the bigger, the better chance at getting a job) to vouch for you. According to the article, this may not be true for rich white men (presumably, American), but if you are from Kazakhstan or Nigeria, I believe you'll definitely get a bang for your buck waving that Harvard paper in front of a potential employer.
>In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn’t, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers.
I've read that SATs are heavily g-loaded.
In such a case, your success being correlated with the SAT is obvious, as IQ being positively correlated with income is well-accepted in psychometrics.
So yes, you can be successful without going to a good school, but mostly because you're relatively intelligent.
So it's a tautology. Prestigious schools attract top talent because top talent goes to prestigious schools. The best way to be successful is to be top talent—regardless of where you go to school for the majority—but top talent are likely to be those people who push and stress and play to win the "collegiate sweepstakes".
I think you missed the point of the article. It only matters for certain demographics. The byline says it all: "they can have a big effect if you’re not rich, not white, or not a guy"
I'm not sure what 'rich' means in the article, but if it means 'not poor' then for middle class white males it doesn't matter what school is on your resume.
Disagree, because the article/studies essentially indicate that if you're (for instance) a black female who got into MIT but chose to go to State U for cost reasons you'll see an incredible hit in terms of career progression and future earnings. It argues that if you're poor, a racial minority, or female you should go to the top school you can manage even if it causes temporary debt because the payoff will be large. If you're well off and white and a guy you might as well save on college costs, as the career and earning gains are marginal.
"The simplest answer to the question “Do elite colleges matter?” is: It depends on who you are. In the big picture, elite colleges don’t seem to do much extra for rich white guys. But if you’re not rich, not white, or not a guy, the elite-college effect is huge. It increases earnings for minorities and low-income students, and it encourages women to delay marriage and work more, even though it doesn’t raise their per-hour wages."
It not only matters where you go to college but which professors you study under. Got one that doesn't care? Sorry, their research is more important than effectively teaching you. Got one that carries out favoritism and/or discrimination? Sorry, your grade and chance of getting a good first job out of college just got lower if they don't like you, and you still get to pay thousands for that. I see MOOCs as a step in the right direction to solving many problems within education.
[+] [-] cozzyd|7 years ago|reply
This is probably not just due to snobbery; it's much more likely for the admissions committee to have heard of your recommenders and such. If you do research with a famous professor at a non-elite school you'd probably have similar results, but the barrier is a bit higher.
[+] [-] geebee|7 years ago|reply
I do remember an interesting flurry or articles from a study a couple of years ago suggesting it doesn't matter much where you go to college provided you major in STEM. From my limited observations and experience, I'd say that's true - I doubt a strong CS major from UCSD experiences any real disadvantage vis-a-vis more selective ivies, but an international relations major from Yale definitely has a leg up on securing those prestigious early career internships and positions.
[+] [-] bartcobain|7 years ago|reply
Your social skills really matter in your life after college and it might help you paying your student debt.
[+] [-] kaitai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 40acres|7 years ago|reply
It may not be an elite Yale or Stanford education, but most folks don't have that anyway.
[+] [-] purplezooey|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] projectramo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|7 years ago|reply
I wonder if this this advice would actually be harmful. The real cachet of the elite colleges is not so much their elite teaching, but that the elite go to them. Going to these colleges as a non-elite kind of "adopts" you into the elite and has great benefits for these non-elites. However, if these elite colleges basically become a reflection of the United States where the vast majority of people are non-elite, these elite colleges will lose their aura over time. The elite won't really be affected by this as they have other social networks to connect with fellow elite. However, the non-elite will lose this important way of networking with the elite.
[+] [-] projectramo|7 years ago|reply
Is it better to have a high SAT score and go to San Jose State vs low SAT score and go to (say) UVa (University of Virginia which is a good school far away from Silicon Valley) to get a job in Silicon Valley.
[+] [-] devilmoon|7 years ago|reply
Anedoctal example, but I graduated with a decent mark from the top CS department in my country (106/110) as an UG, I couldn't even apply for a masters in top universities in the UK (let alone US) since their requirements are skewed towards not accepting people from my country (if you came from the UK you needed a 2:1, which if I remember correctly is around 70%, if you came from my country you needed 109/110, which is over 99%. Scores for other EU countries like Spain and France were converted to their 70%). This led me to going into a masters in my country, which will most likely hinder me from getting a PhD in any top institution in the EU just because of the country I was born in, even though some of the professors in my current masters degree course are top researchers in their fields. So yes, I feel like where you go to school earlier in life greatly influences where you will end up in the future; and even more so, where you were born influences your chances of making it anywhere in life. This is not to say that I am some unrecognised genius, I feel like I am a "median" CS student with a poor math background to booth; but at the same time I absolutely feel like a lot of talent will go unrecognised and won't have the same chances in life others have just because they happened to be born in a country rather than another (even more so after having studied in the UK for a year and having met people who went on to work for top companies when they clearly were subpar compared to people studying in my own country)
[+] [-] aantix|7 years ago|reply
I've interviewed plenty of people in SF - candidates from top tier universities like MIT. And have passed on them. They simply lacked a proficiency in doing the basics (Rails in this case).
There's so many opportunity to be had by just showing very specific proficiencies with a personal project.
Skip all of the hoops you've outlined above, because they never matter anyway. A majority of candidates never have a portfolio, it's the biggest opportunity that is missed by most.
[+] [-] raptorfactor|7 years ago|reply
IIRC my education history came up once in the interview process (I was interviewed by 6 different people that day and only one brought it up), and that part of the conversation basically consisted of:
Interviewer: "You don't have a degree?"
Me: "No, I'm self-taught."
Interviewer: "Oh okay, that's cool."
Literally nobody that I work with talks or cares about where you went to school or what your grades were. YMMV I guess.
[+] [-] commandlinefan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alarge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kjeetgill|7 years ago|reply
I suspect I'm kinda in the middle, UC Davis represent! Great school, glad to have attended, but not really seen as a Stanford, Berkeley, UIUC, or CMU tier either.
[+] [-] stcredzero|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fetus8|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrwthrw93223|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csa|7 years ago|reply
There are an abundance of people who are qualified to get into elite universities at less-than-best schools in a given state.
There are three main issues that I see:
1. They self-select out of applying. They know lots of smart people, but they don’t know anyone else who applied, so those elite schools must be impossible to get into.
2. Their teachers/administrators have no idea how to write a strong recommendation for a stellar student. The applicants don’t know how to choose people who can write good recommendations.
3. The applicants don’t know about the small tweaks in their extracurriculars that will make them standout (e.g., demonstrating leadership, vision, etc.), and/or they don’t know how to write about their considerable achievements in a compelling way (e.g., I’ve heard an incredible and incredibly modest person saying that their considerable achievements were not worth discussing on an appication because “Well, what else would you do? Isn’t this just normal?” Answer, no, it was not normal.).
Note also that plenty of the “poor” students have been recruited in one way or another, with athletes probably being the biggest recruiting pool.
[+] [-] CompelTechnic|7 years ago|reply
If the universities want to help low income students, and are only able to help a certain number of them given the resources they have available, academic merit is the best way to do it.
[+] [-] randyrand|7 years ago|reply
Have to be? Or tend to be. I think we often overlook that richer families tend to have a lot better parenting. It's not just about money. Good parenting is arguably more important than being wealthy.
[+] [-] honkycat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterburkimsher|7 years ago|reply
I'm (still) trying to find a job in New Zealand, Australia, or Canada. Despite an MEng and 4 years work experience to satisfy immigration, companies aren't interested in interviewing people who aren't already physically there and have the right to work.
The only solution seems to be to get a student visa by joining a course in underwater basket weaving, and continue looking for a job locally when physically present. It's a terrible misuse of the visa system, but there seems to be no other way.
[+] [-] cosmosai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evilturnip|7 years ago|reply
I've read that SATs are heavily g-loaded.
In such a case, your success being correlated with the SAT is obvious, as IQ being positively correlated with income is well-accepted in psychometrics.
So yes, you can be successful without going to a good school, but mostly because you're relatively intelligent.
[+] [-] basseq|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matty_makes|7 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what 'rich' means in the article, but if it means 'not poor' then for middle class white males it doesn't matter what school is on your resume.
[+] [-] kaitai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] groth|7 years ago|reply
"The simplest answer to the question “Do elite colleges matter?” is: It depends on who you are. In the big picture, elite colleges don’t seem to do much extra for rich white guys. But if you’re not rich, not white, or not a guy, the elite-college effect is huge. It increases earnings for minorities and low-income students, and it encourages women to delay marriage and work more, even though it doesn’t raise their per-hour wages."
[+] [-] war1025|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pl1234|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sumnole|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] C1sc0cat|7 years ago|reply