3 ms·

The results of people going to Ivies is significantly better. You make better contacts and you have access to better resources. This would be better described

The results of people going to Ivies is significantly better. You make better contacts and you have access to better resources. This would be better described as Ivy+ which is the usual Ivies and colleges that are considered at that tier such as Stanford. Putting it another way, if you are going to college and you had an Ivy+ college as an option, why would you not choose that?

bumby 3y ago
>The results of people going to Ivies is significantly better. The studies I’ve seen contradict this. Students who are accepted to elite colleges but instead go to “lesser” schools do just as well as their Ivy counterparts. The exception is extremely poor students who do better by going to elite schools; researchers speculate that is due to networking effects. But that effect doesn’t generalize well like your comment implies.
- antasvara 3y ago
  Note: I can't find the article on this, so no data unfortunately. The reason for this (at least from what I've heard) is that when you've got the credentials to get into an Ivy, the limiting factor for your success is "being able to complete your degree." If you choose an "easier" school, your odds of completing a degree go up by a lot. You also stand a chance of being one of the best students there, further bolstering your transcript and opportunities for doing research while at the university.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    There's quite a number of variables that go into college selection, and just because you qualify for a bunch doesn't mean that the "most elite" would be the best. Sometimes it is better to be the big fish in the small pond; other times you're better off being smaller in a bigger pond. Part of the problem is trying to work all this out at an age where you're not even allowed to vote, let alone buy a beer or a gun. One of the surest things to aim for, in my opinion, is minimizing external debt carried afterwards, which for low income but high achieving students, may mean aiming at the very top, where full scholarships are available.
  - bumby 3y ago
    The argument that I’ve heard is that we confuse causality. I.e., elite schools select for successful people, not that they add anything to make people successful.

bumby 3y ago

>The results of people going to Ivies is significantly better. The studies I’ve seen contradict this. Students who are accepted to elite colleges but instead go to “lesser” schools do just as well as their Ivy counterparts. The exception is extremely poor students who do better by going to elite schools; researchers speculate that is due to networking effects. But that effect doesn’t generalize well like your comment implies.

antasvara 3y ago
Note: I can't find the article on this, so no data unfortunately. The reason for this (at least from what I've heard) is that when you've got the credentials to get into an Ivy, the limiting factor for your success is "being able to complete your degree." If you choose an "easier" school, your odds of completing a degree go up by a lot. You also stand a chance of being one of the best students there, further bolstering your transcript and opportunities for doing research while at the university.
- bombcar 3y ago
  There's quite a number of variables that go into college selection, and just because you qualify for a bunch doesn't mean that the "most elite" would be the best. Sometimes it is better to be the big fish in the small pond; other times you're better off being smaller in a bigger pond. Part of the problem is trying to work all this out at an age where you're not even allowed to vote, let alone buy a beer or a gun. One of the surest things to aim for, in my opinion, is minimizing external debt carried afterwards, which for low income but high achieving students, may mean aiming at the very top, where full scholarships are available.
- bumby 3y ago
  The argument that I’ve heard is that we confuse causality. I.e., elite schools select for successful people, not that they add anything to make people successful.