31–40 of 67 posts
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 ye…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
In addition access to exclusive and expensive sports, if you have the money, some easy tickets into the Ivy League include: fencing, sailing, rowing (crew), lacrosse, golf, tennis and equestrian.
A run of the mill guy or gal with a straight A record and shooting 60% from three will find a ready welcome at Stanford. That same run of the mill straight A student would be laughed out of the room if they applied without the elite basketball skills. Your daughter might not have much of a chance as a simple straight A student, but if she has straight A's and runs a 48 or 49 second 400... yeah... I can guarantee you that they'll make room for her.
If you're talking about using sports to get in, then almost any sport will do, you don't have to have money for the expensive ones. Problem is, you kind of have to be elite to make it work. Four year varsity starter, state champion level basically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think it depends on companies you worked for prior. I can develop complete applications. However, I don't have much experience with large teams and I don't want to work for a tech company because I prefer a laid back environment and less hours. I doubt google would hire me due to lack of experience working on a large team with many departments,even though my GPA was 3.9 from a average Chicago Uni.
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…
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.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you wrote only adds to, not negates my overall message. These are the products of being poor.
I think the admissions practices are largely fine, and they dont, by design, aim to keep poor people out (as you suggested). I think that these schools could do a better job at educating potential applicants and the circle of people around said potential applicants much better. In my opinion, the internet has democratized this process considerably over the past 20 years or so, but I think there is still considerable…
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…
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.
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 ye…
But is your experience typical or exceptional?
For one: I don't think most families can pay the extra fees associated w/ going to an out of state school. Second: most states have at least one solid state school that has a relatively high acceptance rate for residents, third: students and parents really need to have frank discussions about the economic potential of a degree. Fourth: Students and parents should strongly consider a "half and half" between community college and a state school to complete their degree.
At the end of the day, a lot of parents are paying for prestige, but if you can get the right degree and internship experience I don't think where you went to school is weighted as heavily.
I'm fortunate to be in software (although I did do market research before declaring), I doubt anyone who's read my resume has heard of the school I went to, but a critical internship really opened up the doors for me and I've had opportunities to interview at some of the biggest companies in the world. You gotta think outside the box.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you wrote only adds to, not negates my overall message. These are the products of being poor.
I think the admissions practices are largely fine, and they dont, by design, aim to keep poor people out (as you suggested). I think that these schools could do a better job at educating potential applicants and the circle of people around said potential applicants much better. In my opinion, the internet has democratized this process considerably over the past 20 years or so, but I think there is still considerable…
So you get a boost for being a legacy, for having parents who are rich, for being from a rich feeder school that indicates you have parents who are rich, etc. It's not that you get a -1 on your point total for being poor. It's that you get a lot of +1s for being well-off, because ultimately well-off people give more money back to the school & produce well-off alumni who are attractive to well-off applicants. At private colleges and universities in particular there is a careful attention paid to long-term revenue, as colleges are feeling the economic squeeze in the amenities arms race. Colleges are separating into 'winners' and 'losers' and that sorting is along the lines of revenue and endowment.
The article is right on that connecting unconnected kids with connected peers is the biggest benefit of an 'elite' education. 'Winner' colleges today are trying to surf the wave of existing power structures rather than create/educate a new wave of potential elites.