3 ms·

This fits in with something I’ve noticed. I know this sounds harsh, but when I run across someone who is at the top of their profession and yet seems woefully u

This fits in with something I’ve noticed. I know this sounds harsh, but when I run across someone who is at the top of their profession and yet seems woefully underwhelming, they often have Ivy League BAs in non-demanding majors (For example, Jeff Zucker, Harvard, History. John Tierney, Yale, American Studies). My working hypothesis is that, while everyone who graduates from an elite school has an advantage in terms of reputation and networks, the actual difficulty of completing certain degrees isn’t that high relative to non-elite schools. Thus a history degree from Harvard isn’t worth that much more than a history degree from a Cal State school. This has been my experience. I used to hold Harvard, Yale and Princeton in very high esteem. Then I met a dumb as rocks Princeton history major. In his defense, he was in a Sales job, and admitted that Lacrosse helped him get in. It isn't like history majors in large public schools have any higher of a mean competence. I reached the opposite conclusion as the article, though. If you're going to major in something soft and what to go anywhere, you have to go somewhere good. You can have a good career with a CS degree from either Yale or Ohio State. If you want to have a good career with a Journalism or History degree, you really need to go to Yale.

hga 12y ago
"and admitted that Lacrosse helped him get in" Indeed. Once you factor in the athletes and worse, legacy admits, Ivies have real trouble building an all around good class by the metrics most in this discussion are using (by their metrics, they're education the future leaders of the US and world, so...). MIT and no doubt CalTech have a great advantage in that the first calculation in admissions is "can they do the work?"; that, which is a rather high bar, plus tremendous self-selection in applicants, results in a somewhat different student body. Or at least compared to nearby Harvard by my observations.
- mathattack 12y ago
  CalTech is the tops in my book on this. I don't have a huge sample size, but they are all rock stars. I've met a few less than impressive MITers. What surprises me is that the Ivies can still have such high average test scores and GPAs despite all the legacies and athletes. What surprised me about Princeton was that it was Lacrosse. Lacrosse. It convinced me that I want to send my kids to fencing lessons after their math circles.

hga 12y ago

"and admitted that Lacrosse helped him get in" Indeed. Once you factor in the athletes and worse, legacy admits, Ivies have real trouble building an all around good class by the metrics most in this discussion are using (by their metrics, they're education the future leaders of the US and world, so...). MIT and no doubt CalTech have a great advantage in that the first calculation in admissions is "can they do the work?"; that, which is a rather high bar, plus tremendous self-selection in applicants, results in a somewhat different student body. Or at least compared to nearby Harvard by my observations.

mathattack 12y ago
CalTech is the tops in my book on this. I don't have a huge sample size, but they are all rock stars. I've met a few less than impressive MITers. What surprises me is that the Ivies can still have such high average test scores and GPAs despite all the legacies and athletes. What surprised me about Princeton was that it was Lacrosse. Lacrosse. It convinced me that I want to send my kids to fencing lessons after their math circles.