A Declining Opinion of Ivy League Schools
Like most people, I grew up thinking that the Ivy League was where the smartest and best people went. There are natural hiearchies and that was the top. Honestly, after more experience in the world and the events of the last decade or so, I don't think that way anymore.
Of course, I'm an old fart and will not be attending college ever again unless I decide to study history at my leisure, but I've deeply thought about whether I should push my kids to get into the Ivy League. Other than using the degrees for brand name and the campus recruiting, I just don't see the value in it. Just like any luxury brand, I recognize that it still carries weight....even when put on a cheap poorly crafted product. Places like Harvard will continue to have brand recognition - I don't deny that but that's it.
Here are a few things that I've observed over the years:
1. Have never felt intimidated by an Ivy League grad - When I first started working in finance, I felt a little bit ashamed of my non-target degree. Maybe, the Ivy League kids were gonna be a lot smarter and more knowledgeable and I was going to be driving in the slow lane. After working with a lot of Ivy League backgrounds, not once have I met someone who just blew me away on a skills perspective. Yes, plenty of smart people but no different than smart students at my non-target either.
2. Dumb Ivy League grads exist - I'm not even sure how to explain this given the entrance exams to get into the Ivies etc.....but I've actually met some dumb Ivy League grads. Like people who don't understand some of the most basic concepts in finance. Now, I'm not talking about many.....it's very very few, but enough to dispel the myth that everyone graduating out of there is some sort of genius.
3. Admissions cases - Recently the court rulings regarding admissions opened my eyes to places like Harvard. First there is the diversity preference, the nepo legacy babies, and the crew/polo/gymnastics sports admissions. It really makes me wonder what percentage of people in these freakin schools actually got in on pure merit as the best of the best.
4. Politics - We're seeing it again now with 75 Harvard groups throwing their support behind Hamas. It's not the first dumb statement from an Ivy League group, and it won't be the last. Yes, all colleges tend to be left-wing but it seems like the Ivy League takes it to the extreme. I think that I would rather have my kid graduate from a non-target and have middle of the road political views rather than get a brand name degree from the Ivy League and come home with 30 piercings in his/her face and a Che Guerra shirt.
5. Stupid Politics - It's not just about partisanship. Wouldn't my case #4 mean that if you are liberal, you should send your kids to Ivies? No! What shocks me about a lot of the politics is how dumb and unsophisticated they are. Look, I don't agree with Paul Krugman on a lot things, but I realize that people like him are well educated, have sophisticated views and understand opposing viewpoints. If Harvard was minting little Paul Krugman's that's fine - that's a good school, but it seems like they are miniting Marx clones instead.
Yes, I know it's a bit of a rant. Thoughts and opinions welcome. What am I missing? Is it still worth it for the hard sciences?
I agree with you that I thought Ivy Leaguers were so much better than others (similar to JV team playing the Varsity) but realized the majority are not much different. Institutions have regressed to an extent due to activism and politics becoming integrated.
My one omission is how I impressed I have been with a lot of freshman. A few from top schools have friended me on LinkedIn and a number of them had PE/VC internships (sure they probably didn't do shit) while still in high school. Others founded companies or participated in national organizations. Maybe this was always the case and is only highlighted with public resumes on the internet, but gives me hope that this is the product of todays hypercompetitive environment.
IMF economists at high GDP growth leading indicators
😍😍
I go to a top ivy and can confirm this is for the most part true. 30% are legacies, 10-15% student athletes, 20% mega rich/diversity kids, another 10-20% just went to a top private school and did ok there. A lot of the people you see and meet there are honestly not going to be much smarter than kids at top 10-50 schools.
Yet there is a segment of the population, maybe 30%, that are just unbelievably smart, and this should be obvious given the admissions requirements. I got perfect ACT scores, top of my class, multiple internships in high school and feel left behind by some of the kids here, especially in Math/CS fields. Not to mention the institutional funding that ivies have, with massive endowements and finance clubs / funds that are top notch; the amount of resources is unparalleled. If you met thatcher baldwin who went to andover and is a triple legacy he's probably not that smart, but just the criteria for normal kids to get into ivies means some of the smartest kids in the US go there.
Thanks for this.....kind of my inkling as well. Most Ivy League grads that I'm interacting are business school people, who let's face it folks, are not the best and brightest at any college. Sounds like the sciences are still strong.
Question for you on the dumb politics. Do the CS/math type students get involved in this crap too or is it just loud arts and social sciences people?
we don't have time for that crap :)
Was in the engineering school at one of the most liberal Ivies, I never talked politics with my peers.
The super left wing stuff you hear about schools is a very very very vocal minority.
Are the standards for legacies really that much lower for the group that doesn't donate $1mm+ per year? Have family members who had perfect grades, top test scores, great extra curriculars who still didn't get into HYP.
IMO, race and gender play a much bigger factor.
Amateur statisticians have analyzed publicly released Harvard admissions data from the recent SCOTUS ruling on affirmation action. The results were statistically significant: it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that racial discrimination was real.
So what is the school where 100% of the population are those 30% genuinely smart kids? MIT? CalTech?
Can agree with this statement, in stem subjects Ivy League Schools (those that have rigorous engineering colleges) are still very high performing and create top talent that works in non finance fields. I had a full ACT score and was a physics olympiad semifinalist but still felt below average in engineering classes at an ivy league college.
I'm surprised you just realized the ivy league and higher ed are a joke
I have a few misc thoughts on this below. Both my wife and I went to Ivies, which means our kids have double Ivy legacy. This topic has come up once in a while.
*School reputation is defined by the top 5% of its graduates. For Harvard for example, it would be people like Zuckerberg, Obama, Larry Summers, etc. The “middle chunk of the IQ distribution” of Ivy grads are no more intelligent than the average college grad in the US, from our personal experience.
*Regardless of politics, watering down of admission standards, etc., I’d say the top 5% of Ivies are still more intelligent than the top 5% of an average state school. And that’s why parents still want their kids to attend Ivies - probability wise you are far more likely to brush shoulders with future leaders of society (in business, sciences, politics, etc.) and that network makes it all worth it in some parents’ opinions.
*I do think the value of an Ivy degree (and US college degrees generally) has exponentially decreased given how expensive it is. I cannot in my mind justify paying $80k out-of-pocket for my kids to go to my/my wife’s Alma Mater. The cost-benefit analysis is extremely skewed towards the downside.
*If we continue on this trend (skyrocketing costs), our current thinking is that maybe our kids can explore degrees in countries - UK and Canada for example. My amateur research suggests the monetary value would be far more worthwhile than a US degree.
*Do we regret paying lots of money to go to an Ivy (vs. staying in state)? I think it about it a bit and right my answer is “No, it was still worth it”. I got to meet very interesting people and my alum network is very complimentary to my professional one (I had a nice chat with Jon Gray of Blackstone a few months ago for example, courtesy of an alum of my school).
*Every family needs to make the best decision for themselves. Not everyone can afford to go to an Ivy and sometimes the best solution in in-state, perhaps even a trade school. I had major “Ivy Halo” when I was 18-20, thinking I won the lottery, etc. But my perspective changed a lot over time (mainly that everyone has an “ideal” path of life and it’s not all about Ivy->sell side ->Top MBA->buyside).
.
Agreed on it being worth it. I had full financial aid due to me being middle class and got access to networks and experiences that shaped my career. Even if I had to pay full price, I’d do it again in a heartbeat.
None of those three are Harvard graduates. Only Mark Zuckerberg even attended Harvard, dropping out in his sophomore year. Obama graduated from Columbia and Larry Summers graduated from MIT. (Obama got his JD from Harvard Law School and Summers got his PhD in Economics there.)
ETA: Lots of MS lol. Sorry, but if you went to IU and paid full tuition for a MF from Harvard, you're still an Indiana graduate, not a Harvard graduate. "School" unqualified, with gen eds, etc., ALWAYS means undergrad.
ETA 2: Someone is going through my comment history and throwing MS on all of them. Probably someone who was butthurt by this comment.
What does attending Harvard for graduate school make you an alumnus of ?
People who go to Harvard for law school and PhD are not Harvard graduates? What?
What a bizarre logic. I used to work with a PM who went to a state school for undergrad, figured out what finance was, entered the industry as an Analyst at 28, saved up some money, and went to Stanford GSB. According to your logic, he should be forever known as a state school grad?
I have a BSc and MSc from two different Ivies, on the Talent/Recruiting committee of my shop, and this is the first time I’m hearing of such nonsense. This little boy here really thinks he’s the Gestapo of school credentials.
To anyone reading this with a Masters or PhD: yes, you are a “graduate” of that school and you don’t need to qualify that statement with anything.
Okay? You sound like another boomer complaining about how the world is changing and how this generation sucks. Kids, no matter what school they go to, are intrinsically pretty fucking stupid and are still growing. Those kids will sell out and become moderates soon enough.
As a graduate from a target, I’m going to respond anecdotally and candidly to your points.
1. Have never felt intimidated by an Ivy League grad - You probably worked at a financial firm that target students didn’t want to go to, like the Big 4 or most MM banks. People who “sell out” generally end up at BBs, top boutiques, MBB, buy-side, tech, etc. Honestly, my first job was at your standard MM bank and I was ashamed of myself because it felt like I undershot compared to my classmates. That being said, these are normal kids who are just smarter / able to pick up information quicker. There’s nothing intrinsically amazing about them and if they’re geniuses, they’re probably just autistic.
2. Dumb Ivy League grads exist - Yes. Lots of diversity, nepos, athletes are dumb. BUT! They work hard. I would say on average, Ivies have much less dumb kids and the dumbest kid is still smarter than most dumb kids than the ones at state schools.
3. Admissions cases - Agreed - it’s fucked. That being said, you don’t want your classes to be filled with just Asians who do the same thing. There is value in diversity of thoughts and backgrounds, especially in college, but most colleges have taken it a bit too far these days.
4. Politics - You’re really overselling it. It’s like 3 groups and most of the members left the groups because the group leaders spearheaded it without input. That being said, my father is a professor at a state school and I would say their “extremeness” on both political fronts is about the same across the Ivies and state schools. The Ivy kids are just louder and get a larger platform to do it from. Those kids end up selling out to McKinsey and becoming moderate anyways.
5. Stupid Politics - Like I said, these are 19 year olds. You’re putting them on the same level as adults with decades of experience. Give them time. These kids might have raw intellectual power but they’re still pretty fucking dumb. I was pretty fucking dumb and I cringe at the things I said back in undergrad. These kids will to, give them time. We shouldn’t necessarily be against empathy (obviously some kids take it too far and don’t understand nuance). Some kids are also just angry at the world. That’ll be fixed when the first paycheck hits.
I’m at West Point right now and I can for sure say I want my kids to come here.
Tradeoff is that you have to go to West Point and miss out on the stereotypical college experience. Not to mention the required years of service.
The Citadel > Westpoint
Service optional, but if you sign a military contract before freshman year, you can get school paid for like Westpoint.
Bring back the triple option!
From friends who went there and are on active duty - I’ve heard its a great place if you never want to get laid, never want to develop normal social skills, like to get hazed, and love extreme amounts of hierarchy and structure. I have heard the male camaraderie is great, the no tuition is amazing if you come from a family without money, and it gives you lots of unique experiences if you want to make a long term career in the military. If the goal is to be a general one day, it’s the place to be.
All of my friends are getting out once their commitment is up and said they wished they just did ROTC instead.
I appreciate your service
The whole concept of using a brand to get more out of it than you put into it, is in the early stages of decline and and will keep declining IMHO.
Societies think they can ride brands because they are complacent. When the US was riding high for the past several decades, and GDP growth was a sustained high single digits, life could be planned very differently. For example you could expect stay at a company a long time because by the time you’re up for each promotion, the company has grown so much that there’s now a seat for everyone who entered years before. Just one example.
That kind of a life breeds ideas like “if Injust get into the right school or get the right connections coming out of school, I’ll be on the path.”.
We’re not that society anymore, at least not economically. We’re a 2-3% growth society with a slightly unsustainable way of life. People are going to have to compete a lot harder to get ahead and stay ahead, and I think that means a major paradigm shift from this mentality of grabbing a seat at the table when you’re 18 and riding that shit forever.
My $0.02, remind your kids often that credentialization should never be confused with education. Focus on actually being the best, rather than acquiring proxies that attempt to signal you might be the best. We’re headed for a world where you’re increasingly judged on what you actually contribute.
"Focus on actually being the best, rather than acquiring proxies that attempt to signal you might be the best. "
This. Thanks
To further this point. Top state schools like UVA/UM/UNC/CAL/UT etc. all have undergraduate business degrees which are infinitely better than a social science / arts degree from an Ivy League (Wharton excluded).
Top state schools usually cheaper (even if out of state).
Top state schools have Greek life / an actual social life. With the exception of maybe Dartmouth (maybe) every Ivy League kid is a complete pussy that’s never had a beer in their life. Greek life is tiny at the schools and usually full of weirdos.
Congrats on Kenan-Flagler
Didn’t go there, literally just look at the top 5 public US colleges
The most accomplished and brilliant kids at my school (top ivy) are not wasting their time in finance or consulting (class of 2020). They are actually doing impactful, additive, and money-making work. Finance/Consulting tended to be the anywhere from the 25th-95th percentile of kids in my year of which there was a smattering of the top 5 percentiles who either a) wanted to make money first b) get a resume name first or c) were developing their things on the side.
The three best people I knew:
1) did a summer internship in REPE and decided to start his own property management company in the city he is from instead because he liked the hands-on side more. Just bought his 2nd rental and has grown his business to about five employees.
2) did a top IB internship and jumped ship straight to VC which is what she wanted and is killing it (early promo)
3) was a science major who did MBB consulting internship said screw it and is now in med school and looking to become a heart surgeon.
Three different paths but all extremely impressive.
3 is impressive but are 1 and 2 really that unique?
I went to a state school with a 70% acceptance rate (think UNC Wilmington) and know dozens of people who have either gone straight to the buyside or successfully executed that exact RE business idea (that model is like 10+ years old at this point). Several of those people are even retired before 30 and have low 8 figure net worths (2016 grads).
3 most impressive people I met at a lowly state school:
ML/AI PHD (GS TMT intern -> Stanford/CMU PHD -> Unicorn Executive (Deepmind/Open AI)
MBB -> Top Charity (Schwarzman/Gates) -> Founded $100M+ Impact Investing Fund
Buyside -> Chemistry PHD -> Founded $1B PE Fund (EVR RX Intern -> learned Mandarin from scratch and decided to move to the Mainland China where he didn’t know anyone (had 3 months to learn language) -> Networked way into Buyside shop where business was done in mandarin -> got into top Chemistry PHD in China (taught entirely in Mandarin after 2 years of speaking language) -> Leveraged relationships to raise $1B Life Sciences PE Fund
I did a masters at a top Ivy (Yale/Princeton) and didn’t find anybody coming from an ivy background to be particularly impressive. Tons of H/Y/P and Dartmouth/Columbia kids that couldn’t figure out how to make a balance sheet balance. The smartest guy in our program was a former frat bro from UT Dallas who couldn’t break 600 on the GMAT (test waiver was only reason he got in).
After completing that program I came to the conclusion that it’s really only the top 10% of people at these places that are able to differentiate themselves from the crowd. The bottom 90% are just better at playing the game/more polished and taking tests than your average person. Once it comes down to actually doing the work these kids aren’t even half as smart as they think they are.
I'm all for state schools, but all these people you mentioned raised 1 billion funds before they were 30? Lol what shit.
If you want to make it all about the money, there are plenty in my year and a few younger who have all achieved similar NW through starting their own companies (not RE). Heck, the wealthiest one I know of from those just sold his tech startup.
I also tried to direct my response towards people who initially pursued mbb/high finance. Not an apples-to-apples comparison if you are talking about tech folks (of which there are plenty). You also tagged people who are well into their careers while I tagged people who are 2-3 years out.
My buddy who started his RE company came from a sub 30k parental income background and had basically no connections and built his business from the ground up. Similarly the person I know who went to VC is only 3 years out and I have no doubt will be a very successful VC investor. Have to make apples to apples comparisons.
Masters programs at Ivies are just money-makers. Undergrad is where the actual smart people are. Masters are for those who couldn't find a job post-undergrad and every STEM/research-focused Ivy undergrad knows to go to a public state school flagship for their post-graduate degrees because those schools are focused on that, while the Ivies emphasize funding for undergraduates first.
Surgeons are operating on random NPCs, which has zero impact on the wider world, remember?
Bruh the 95th percentile at Ivies are not going into finance at all barring some sell side/VC even fewer MBB. You had the right chain of reasoning but completely screwed up with your examples. Those obviously are individually very impressive but the creme de la creme of Ivies are doing something along the lines of working with fields medal winners, working at some esoteric biotech company or actually making progress within that field, NASA, working in some cutting edge tech startup with hella equity, MD/PHD Harvard/Stanford
Lol I literally said it before, I brought up the impressive folks I knew who FOCUSED ON IB/PE/HIGH FINANCE not impressive candidates broadly. Obviously a massive difference.
Don't think I agree with this take. Politics has very little to do with how good someone is at making money. These schools are getting harder and harder to get into every year. The standard for admission has only increased while I'm guessing legacy admissions has always been in place and probably to a greater extent than now; way back when Harvard did not admit any Jewish people until the 1920s, for example, despite them being very qualified. Admissions now is, for the most part, very competitive regardless of your race, and I say this even though I'm not a minority. The quality of students is pretty fukin crazy. In my freshman dorm at an Ivy, there were a bunch of people who won national competitions in physics/had legit patents, and so on. Are these kids cool, and can they drink? No. But they work at Citadel/Jane Street now. The top of the distribution is still at these elite campuses, and I would argue the quality of students has substantially improved (at least on paper), especially at some of the middle ivies in the past two decades.
It's always surprising how many people who didn't go to these targets assume that there's a bunch of nepo babies at the Ivies and, therefore, these schools aren't that great. The reality is very different. I don't know where you work, but If I compare the median kid at my school versus the median interns at my BB, the median kid at an Ivy is pretty damn competent. And to be honest, the bar to be a true Nepo baby at an Ivy is pretty damn high; You have to donate like 8 figs imao; there's not a ton of those people, and it doesn't hurt to go to school with them if one is interested in finance. People who are merely "rich" (non-billionaire) and legacy people still have to meet the bar.
University in general is a joke. Forcing you to take pointless courses, etc.
A few things:
Coming from someone with two ivy league degrees (masters and bachelors)....
Yes, you are right. The school you go to doesn't matter and anyone can become a billionaire/trillionaire as long as they believe in themselves, work hard, trust in God, etc.
It's a just a brand/social network to tap into.
Say you are a part of a 3rd gen family business. Your cousins didn't go to an ivy, but you did... you could be the best canadidate to be the family business successor CEO.
Or to convince your parents to give you more money in your trust fund rather to charity.
Or to impress certain women?
I went to a top 20 private school (think duke/Vandy) and transferred to an ivy, just graduated. People are insanely smart, especially some math/engineering students. However, a large portion are smart kids but no different than smart kids at state schools. In terms of jobs, me and pretty much all my friends at ivy or duke/Vandy got tier 1 jobs, but so did my high school friends who went to state schools, but with that being said, my high school friends are very smart so that isn’t representative of the average state school student by any means. Basically, if you’re smart/hard working, you’ll do fine at pretty much any college you go to. Anyways, OP, you can’t do much to “push” your kids to get into Ivy League schools. The college admissions process is a crapshoot for anyone without an advantage (rich, legacy, etc) and as someone who worked very hard in high school to get into “elite colleges”, it isn’t worth it (in terms of the immense amount of work you have to do in high school) I know I would’ve been 100% fine if I went to a state school. As a parent the process is out of control, unless you want to be one of the those strict helicopter parents, but even then, your kid has to self motivated and extremely talented in high school (i.e. win national awards, top of class,‘etc) to have a shot at an ivy. Let your kid be who they are, don’t pressure them (because even if you do, there’s like a 90%+ chance they won’t get into an ivy and they’ll end up resenting you), and let them enjoy life (as someone who worked too hard in hs to get into elite colleges). During college I did college admissions tutoring as a part time job, and ive seen it all (I’ve seen parents literally come to the tutoring session with their kids and tell them about everything from Major to school to sports, etc). I’ve never seen a helicopter parents kid get into an ivy. All the ones I’ve helped that have gotten in are self motivated. The reason I’m saying this is because the act of OP making this post and using the verbiage “push” my kids into Ivy League is a statement I’ve heard wayy to often and indicates (in my opinion) a parent a bit too far in terms of pressure which is detrimental (not saying OP is doing this, but just my general opinion).
6. Terrorist sympathizers
if you're from a non-target your presence in IB is well-deserved, contrary to being there because a brand helped you.
also, there is 0 difference in intelligence in finance settings between Ivy vs. non-targets. It just proves that some people were extremely academically driven in high school and others weren't (hehe guilty), but absolutely 0 difference in how they carry themselves in life or work. Having an Ivy brand proves how well you did in high school, but nothing more.
The true assessment of how someone will do professionally is meeting with them and talk. That's the main indicator. Because do you know those discussions where the kid is just kissing ass and agreeing with everything you say and then there are people that are critical thinkers and can stand for themselves? That's just a difference of something you sense in a coffee chat. There are infinite more that separate the mediocre from those with potential and it has nothing to do with their school.
Going to an Ivy League is the high school equivalent of working in BB IB.
Picture this: you strut into your family reunion wearing your Harvard sweatshirt, and suddenly, your great aunt Matilda thinks you're the next Warren Buffett!
You see, attending an Ivy League school comes with a certain level of prestige that's practically the financial equivalent of bathing in liquid gold. It's like having a neon sign that says, "I'm high-class finance material."
Now, when you graduate from one of these fancy institutions, you're practically handed a golden ticket (sorry, Willy Wonka) to the likes of Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, or any other swanky investment bank. It's like an exclusive club where they only let in the best of the best (and those with Ivy League diplomas).
But let's not forget the true essence of it all - those all-nighters and caffeine-fueled study sessions. That's where you learn how to survive on three hours of sleep, which, coincidentally, is excellent preparation for the sleep-deprived world of finance. Your education becomes a marathon of coffee cups and textbook cramming, but hey, at least your family is proud!
Sure, you might not remember much about finance theory when you're analyzing complex derivatives in the middle of the night, but that's what Google is for, right? In the long term, it's not really about what you learned in school but where you get your foot in the door. Your alma mater on your resume is like a secret handshake into the world of high finance.
I went to an Ivy League and in general, I was not very impressed by my peers. In general, the people going to an Ivy League are very motivated and career-focused. However, that doesn't mean they are exceptional in any regard. In my experience, the quality at non/semi-targets is often lower simply because people are generally less focused on their careers. Meanwhile, the people at non/semi-targets who are motivated often blow kids from targets out of the water when it comes to level of skill and knowledge. Why? Simply because they need to. They don't have all the banks coming to their uni, they don't have a brand name they can leverage to get interviews, they don't have a network they can leverage to gain insights etc. As a result, they need to go out there and get it themselves rather than getting spoonfed internships by their university.
Most of the people I've met and been genuinely impressed by were from non-targets. No hate against targets as I went to one myself, but people from targets are rarely exceptional.
I was at a top 25 and transferred to a top 10 ivy. I didn't take the honors sequences (which I guess some really smart outlier kids would take).
But for ordinary courses, I feel the kids' are of similar calibre. Most of them still ask dumb questions in calc or intermediate econ classes. Not knowing how to do the assignments and copying from each other or checking the answers on coursehero or chegg. With admission grades converging to the high end for top 20-30 schools, I think the academic difference would only narrow further.
But the best part we can't miss here is that top 10 / ivies in general have very lenient curves. UCLA or Cal or even UMich have 3.3 average or lower whereas most top tier privates give out A like candies. Assuming SAT score is a good academic indicator (and based on my anecdotal experiences), kids with similar IQ and one group of them are curving at 3.6, then obviously I know which group I should sign up my kids for.
At the end of the day, schools are just an entry ticket to the workplace or entrepreneurship. The brand name opens the doors for you. Alumni or people with overinflated ego (who view highly of others with similar brands) help out each other. It just carries you so far that the lower ranked schools cannot offer.
You can just sleep through your four years and get 3.6 minimum and be one of the proud kids with inflated egos and leverage people's perception of prestige and network. Why not?
yes but ivy league schools have great reputations and legacies
Pretty clear certain users who have been on this site for a while (mostly older users) cannot come to grips there is certain topics WSO and many others on here do not want to engage in. So now we need to create threads to mask those topics so they can "hint hint" be discussed.
Oh I got torched for having a view young people disagree with elsewhere, so let me make a milder thread where every non-target kid can celebrate and provide me SBs.
If you think Ivy league/Oxford/Cambridge/etc schools have not been full of people who bring controversial views not sure what history/planet you live on. Ever heard of the Vietnam war?
As many others said feel free to "put down" and "blacklist", Ivy league students but reality is vast majority give zero effs these days and have created industries where people do not blacklist them for their opinions while in school.
I agree with this. Too many kids are on this site repeating all the dumb shit their stupid fucking white trash Republican parents say. It clogs up the discussions and wastes everyone’s time. The occasional uber-liberal just adds to the echo chamber noise.
Having a dozen 19 year old 4chan rejects squawking the same shit in every thread is 90% of the reason actual industry veterans don’t see this site as worth their time except for the occasional troll comment here and there. WSO loses value the more work and life experience you have.
Very few responses above are regarding politics but it seems pretty important to you. Glad that everyone has been helpful with great responses on points #1 -3 which was the primary purpose of this post. Hence, the reasons politics was listed last.
Also, if you didn't notice, the post makes an olive branch to the left wing noting that there's nothing wrong with educated left wing views and that left wing views are pretty normal across all colleges. This is just a commentary on extreme left wing views and stupid opinions regardless of where you are ideologically. And it's something worth discussing. Just like some people wouldn't want to sent their kids to Oral Roberts or Liberty Unversity, there are others that wouldn't want their kids to go to UC Berkley.
Trump broke their brain; they cant help but bring up politics.
Wahhhh someone at some school didn’t agree with your ignorant political opinion, all the schools are bad
get a clue dipshit
I went to a top 5 UG and have a cousin who is currently a senior at Harvard. We had a similar discussion about this not too long ago.
My 2 cents:
-Because it has gotten so easy to apply to schools, top colleges are getting a very wide range of applications. The median is not crazy impressive due to legacy, affirmative action, recruited athletes, and other special cases. The top 10% however are insanely impressive and stronger than ever before.
-I think the importance of elite undergrad has increased in recent years, not decreased. This is due to these colleges being the gate keepers to the most desirable jobs in the country.
-According to my cousin, the most common paths for the top students at Harvard are: 1) elite quant shops such as Two Sigma/Citadel/Jane Street, 2) STEM Phd programs, 3) tech, 4) buyside such as blackstone, KKR, bain capital, 5) MBB.
-Law and med schools are not coveted as their desirability has declined significantly in recent years.
Most top caliber kids at my ivy went to med school. However, I entered college just right after the financial crisis. Being a doc at the time was probably the highest paid career on a risk adjusted basis. People weren’t too keen on finance given the financial crisis. Comp sci wasn’t that popular either nor was the concept of “faang.”
Doctors’ pay sucks these days and quite unfortunate given the amount of work they put in. Comp sci/legal/finance careers can easily eclipse physician comp, so I’m not surprised that most top students are going to quant funds, faang, buyside, etc.
I recall college being extremely stressful and there were a bunch of suicides while I attended. People were really risk averse and it wasn’t easy for most families to shell out 80k + annually right after the financial crisis. Most of my peers worked extremely hard and are doing well professionally now. I have no idea what the student body is like these days.
Why do you say doctor's pay sucks? It hasn't really kept up with inflation for sure, but I could say similar stuff about many buy-side or SS roles these days as well
Also legal is declining in a HUGE way in interest. Market is oversatured with lawyers and few want to put in the time anymore to grind all the way to the top (not dissimilar to IB but the work is arguably even more mundane in big law)
I think Tech is the net winner here, even in finance more and more folks are exiting. Makes me wonder sometimes if I should've gone into tech though I suck at coding
Your cousin is definitely referencing his friend group or is trying to impress you to some degree. At a sheer numerical level, there's way more people going into IB than elite quant shop even at Harvard. Also Med school is still very popular and there's way more people going into med school from Harvard undergrad. There's a crap ton of Indians, Chinese, and Jews there so med school will always be huge because for example in Indian culture being a doctor is S tier prestige. I would almost bet law school is still more common than elite quant. If I had to make a guess it would be (1) Finance(IB, PE, Asset management, HF) (2) Med school (3) Consulting (4) Tech (5) Law school (6) STEM-PHD (7) Quant (8) something outside entertainment/ their own startup/working in the administration of the prime minster of Ireland or something like that/marketing/non-profit (9) Non-STEM PHD. 6 and 7 might be reversed
thought being an industrialist tycoon was the real S tier in India
You totally misread the post. I'm not talking about raw volume; I'm referring to selectivity and desirability. Of course, more people go to grad school than join quant funds. But the ranking my cousin gave is roughly the hierarchy in terms of what the top Harvard undergrads want.
No strong view here. But when people say the Ivy grads at their BB IB/MBB/top tech job were less impressive than their state school counterparts, that is a positive indicator for the Ivy. Because it means you need to be much better coming out of the state school to get the same job (the Ivy boost to less impressive people is higher)
This sub is filled with nontargets who have chips on their shoulders and grasp at any opportunity to bash elite schools to make themselves feel better. Undergrad admissions was a long time ago guys… please go to therapy
The most insightful comments are from people claiming to attend the Ivies. Are you assuming that these are fake non-target accounts? Confused?
Just another one of the infinite posts of non-targets shitting on Ivy kids because "they couldn't balance a balance sheet"... Modeling/finance is one of the easiest things to pick up who gives a fuck what they know out of college in this regard lol. Only non-targets go on about how "unimpressive" we are for not being finance hardos (we don't have to be).
Conflating how much of a shit someone gives for these bs jobs, that we all almost exclusively do for a paycheck with intelligence is why banks don't want to hire you all in the first place lol. It's literally a retarded take
It’s become a circle jerk. Threads like “the rise of the non target??” and this one are examples of mediocre people blaming their mediocrity on other people. They didn’t get into an Ivy because they “didn’t grow up with a silver spoon”… even though people like me were dirt poor but had a strong work ethic. People have a hard time getting women and post these ridiculous incel threads about how women are difficult these days. A bunch of weirdos overall.
Well, I think that this is the point. These schools are supposed to be the top 1% but if you're running into people who can't balance a balance sheet, then that makes the claim suspect. If you don't know even the basic stuff in your industry which you were supposedly to be studying for 4 years, I got a newsflash for you - you're not in the top 1% despite what your SAT score may suggest.
If you're a random kid from a random state school, sure I'm not expecting a whole lot from a recent grad. However, the whole point of getting a prestigious degree is to signal to an employer that they can expect more from you. But you seem to suggest that an employer shouldn't expect an Ivy League grad to be able to balance a balance sheet. In a way, your comment shits on the Ivy League much more so than what the non-targets have said here.
Also, I'm approaching this as a parent wondering if these schools are worth it anymore beyond the networking and brand name (which for these purposes is likely true). If I'm paying $80K a year and this is a school for the top 1% smartest kids in the country, then I would expect my kid to come out of college knowing how to balance a balance sheet.
Barely any target schools have undergrad business programs. The point is folks can study English and walk into a banking job. Nontargets have to study finance. 98% of this shit is learned with 4 days of Training the Street… it’s not rocket science.
Smoke frog thinks Ivy League def matters
An education is what you make of it. Many times, the difference between people who go to ivies vs the ones who didnt could have just boiled down to just essays or luck rather than intelligence. I’m even thinking that if a person went to a t30 school, they probably had the same chances/odds of getting into an ivy as most of the kids who only received 1 ivy acceptance.
Keep in mind an ivy often has enough fully qualified / acceptable applicants to fill 3-5 classes for their incoming class, but can only fill 1, so those other candidates end up elsewhere.
I have a theory: a person’s achievements made before 18 years old are actually a product of his family background and parental care, not his own merit / capability. High school schoolwork are too simple to distinguish genius from ordinary ( I went to a renowned private school known as top 10 college feeder, and the grades are so inflated that over 60% of students get near-perfect GPA, even the ones that are not that smart ) , and all those extra-curricular activities like clubs, awards, entrepreneurship, internships, even college essays, they are the product of family connections because come on, no one would hire a 18-year-old student who could barely understand cash-flow as an intern if his / her dad is not some senior MD. And those high school entrepreneur-ships are so fake that it basically spells “daddy bought me a company and made me the founder ”. Some aren’t even making revenue, just a trick to get into top business school. Not all of them but MANY of them. You have to wait till 20 or 22 years old to see if a person is really a genius at something, because college coursework is significantly more complex and specialized than high school stuff. However, your fate is sealed at 18 years old because that’s when the god decides whether you should go to a wow-halo target or a ewww-meh non-target. Going to a state school ? Well, say goodbye to high finance and consulting and law and all elite professions for your entire life.
I'm somewhat in this camp as well. I'm also of the opinon that with enough training ahead of time (like years of prep for the SAT by your parents), a slightly above average kid, whose is nothing special, can get pretty close to a perfect SAT score.
For every Ivy League kid there's basically 10-15 other kids who didn't get into that school. Not all of them end up at other targets. Many go to state schools and thrive. It's not worth placing so much weight on a brand in any universe - there's a lot of luck in the draw. Anyone who thinks about it as a must have vs a box to check isn't thinking about it correctly.
That said - no sane person will believe in aggregate it's worth nothing. I've said this before but the reason why Ivy League degrees / students are valued is that it's measure of risk off. If you figured "it" out in high school be it of your own accord or your parents, that's less risk for an employer. If you get good grades at an Ivy and get a summer at GS/MS/JPM, more risk off. More reliability when you slap KKR / Apollo on your resume, more with HBS, etc etc.
You can always right the ship and put in extra legwork to "catch up". Plenty of ivy league kids spend their high school years sleeping four hours a night taking 6 APs and balancing clubs / sports / community service, so guess what? They get to have a four year party and an easier ride to an SA BB position than a non-target. The kids who went to a non-target who take every finance course they can, teach them to model, network like crazy, and land a position? They'll have a leg up on the kid whose blood alcohol level was in line with his GPA. That's just the cycle - don't complain about Ivies and targets being Marxist if you're not willing to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when you can. Just do it as soon as you can.
In general though, while it's great to have a chip on your shoulder to motivate yourself, it's very easy for that chip if displayed externally to just start annoying people, so just don't be a weirdo. Everyone's at the same level once they leave school - bottom of the ladder.
Using the degree for brand name and recruiting is THE reason to go.
Everything else you just wrote is word soup.
Writing a long and highly introspective public screed about a topic is a great way to signal that you don’t care about it :)
Went to one of the Ivy schools. Embarrassed of the shit happening currently. In retrospect, the writing was on the wall when I was there - the woke mob was already running the place; dissent from their opinion was not only not tolerated, but considered an act of social disobedience; virtue signaling was more important than critical thinking or free discourse.
While Ivy League schools will continue to dominate recruiting and scientific research leadership (with other top schools), DEI at big companies won’t allow for official changes in recruiting policies, but individual hiring managers sure are going to have to dig deeper and ask more questions to ascertain the character of the individual.
From a woman’s pov, setting intelligence and job performance aside, I’ve found guys from HYP Columbia + Stanford to be much more physically attractive than other schools. Some of them look like they were eugenics projects, 6’4”+ rowers, perfect smiles, 150+ IQ. I know people want to argue IQ doesn’t mean jack but it’s still impressive to me. I guess when your previous generations could afford to be selective, they only choose to have kids with higher quality people. I’d definitely want to have kids with one of them, plus my kid would be a legacy admit. I know this is fucked up, but I hope if I have daughter that she marries an Ivy legacy. The guys at my T20 undergrad were not cute and short lol.
what is girl yapping about🙄
Qqq
What kind of people go around and talk about their IQ? Isent that cringe af
This is an absolutely bizarre comment. Do you have any sort of data to back up your claims? I know plenty of people from those schools who don't even remotely fit that bill. You seem like the worst form of gold digger imaginable.
Yeah, the guys I see at the nightclubs and summer at St. Tropez. Not every guy at HYP Stanford fits that bill, but if they do have the attributes I described and went to school in the states, it’s almost 99% they went to one of those schools. When your dad, grandfather, great grandfather etc was smart enough to start his own multi-billion dollar company, it’s not that surprising he’s going to find an attractive wife to have kids with and have a possibility of passing down some of his intelligence down to his kids. There were definitely guys who went to my high school that ended up at places like Harvard who were not attractive and didn’t fit the bill, but they weren’t legacies.
As someone who went to one of those schools I can tell that you watched the social network too many times and have an incredibly warped view of what the student population actually looks like.
I've been to many of the schools on campus bc my high school sends a ton of kids to those schools every year, so I ended up visiting friends a lot and going to the games. I also visited the Harvard campus a lot when I was thinking of applying to MBA programs, so many tall hot guys when I visited ugh. Another guy I had a huge crush on who I used to see at my dad's country club from time to time went to Harvard undergrad and Stanford GSB for MBA, he was built like an Olympian athlete, but I never had a chance with him bc he wasn't into asian women. I also never watched that movie but I did watch the big short if it's anything similar.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of average and unattractive-looking people at those schools too (exhibit A the nerdy kids from my high school who were only into STEM), but my undergrad literally had no attractive men whatsoever compared to the Ivies where 1 in 5 of the guys were attractive.
For the Ivy Leaguers who work, wait til Uncle Sam wants to take away more of their income. They will become move towards the center or even to the right (takes about a decade imo)
For the Ivy Leaguers who don't have to work due to family background, or can't get a good job due to facial piercings/excessive tats, low income choice of major, I doubt many will be listening to their unhinged out of touch thoughts anyways...
It’s mostly brand equity if you’re doing sth that isn’t hard sciences. I wasn’t impressed with the US Ivy juniors vs the European juniors who went to the best unis in [insert their country of origin - even if it’s a small country].
Unless it’s a truly blind admissions policy, you’re always running into actual or soft nepotism (ie my parents are no one but I went to an amazing private school).
Sapiente est ea amet et tenetur fugit soluta. Tenetur alias hic aspernatur non sit corporis earum. Qui optio et ad et commodi hic eum asperiores.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nostrum nesciunt iusto maxime perspiciatis doloremque. Sit accusantium ut voluptate ut ut. Sint aspernatur sed molestiae tempore ea.
Saepe aliquid ratione consectetur ipsum. In dolor in quam aut. Ducimus neque dolores quibusdam fuga voluptas et est. Eum ut aut consequuntur beatae. Cum facilis consequatur veniam.
Quaerat esse cupiditate quas aut minus et. Quasi esse itaque repudiandae.
In facilis debitis quis quibusdam facere nihil. Consequatur asperiores repudiandae ut quae quia est. Commodi qui cupiditate voluptatem hic. Itaque rerum accusamus voluptatem ut eos delectus cumque. Eum quibusdam occaecati accusantium ea. Eos totam qui omnis distinctio impedit eum ut. Corrupti aut voluptates et ipsam labore.
Quia maxime asperiores quaerat blanditiis rerum. Sit molestias reiciendis ipsa est deleniti.
Et nobis possimus vitae ea sunt. Dolorem voluptatem vel possimus enim aliquid voluptas. Aut voluptas vel tenetur totam atque autem nihil sit. Laboriosam porro molestiae dolorem aspernatur maxime laborum ex. Qui culpa consequatur et officia explicabo quisquam sed cupiditate. Maiores soluta quisquam rerum ducimus sit a. Numquam nulla animi enim iste alias.
Dolor autem qui voluptatum fugiat. Amet delectus accusantium nihil tenetur excepturi totam sit voluptatem. Enim quaerat iusto libero impedit.
Quia aut et qui suscipit. Adipisci vitae earum magnam omnis. Id voluptates reprehenderit voluptatem et non et.