Univ of Texas tweeting out GPA's?!?!

[TheMatador]

Thought I saw they were opening with Maryland

****, wish I could remember where I saw that, they’re not even playing Maryland it doesn’t look like - maybe I was reading something from last year.

If I did my job this badly and sloppily, I wouldn’t have a job. Just sloppy and lazy on my part.

That's OK. I have a prophecy guy...used to do Old Testament stuff, but the work dried up. Now he does sports, politics, wars, etc.

I like him cause he's reasonable, economical.

The only problem is, he's very slow. Still waiting for word on Golden's successor.

But when he gives me his product, it's always right.

So don't worry about getting schedules mixed up year-to-year. We'll get it straightened out eventually.

 

[5Rings&an Asterisk]

C(+)ONGRATULATIONS!

 

[5Rings&an Asterisk]

That's UF....you know, ***** the pants.

View attachment 86639

I thought we called them the Turds because it was a play on the team name. I didn't know it was literal.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

What are you disagreeing with exactly? Are you saying that elite public colleges from 20 yrs ago no longer are elite? Or are you saying that elite public colleges cannot compete with schools from the Ivy league?

1.) I agree there has been some movement on the public ivy list compared to 20 yrs ago, but by and large public colleges that were elite back then are also elite today. - https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

2.) As for elite public colleges not being able to compete with the Ivy league-I emphatically disagree with that. When you take into account academic quality, value, and overall college experience-the elite public colleges of today absolutely can compete with many of the schools from the Ivy league. I realize that someone who works in Finance or on Wall St. is going to have a hard time accepting that, due to how biased Wall St is towards the Ivy league, but I think that has more to do with old money, influential alumni networks, and plain indoctrination about what qualifies as a quality education than anything else. One of the reasons why I think it's absurd to suggest accomplished grads from public schools like Ga. Tech, Berkeley, UCLA, or UT-Austin can't compete/perform with some of the silver spoon fed Ivy league grads on Wall St. is because I actually know individuals who graduated from those schools, and then went on to work on Wall St, private equity, and management consulting during their careers.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with anything since all you did was post a link. I was making a comment about the link. The "Public Ivy list" is just a 20 year old list made by 2 random guys. They also lose a lot of clout when OSU and UGA are on that list lol.

I agree. There are people from those schools that go on and compete with the best, but it is less common since most of the kids that go to those schools didn't end up getting into the Ivys in the first place. Those schools are the next tier down though. They are great schools, but are not on the level of Stanford and the Ivys.

 

[gatorsSUCK!]

Was a typo. 2.89 is the average IQ of a long horn player

 

[Twhizman]

there. FIFY.

very good state university, but let's not pretend the place is Princeton.

Actually it's up there with Stanford etc.friend of mine brother went the twenty years ago.he said they had a five year waiting list then.I've visited him there really nice campus.I remember the bbq place we are at.put was inside the building you could all the steaks,ribs brisket cooking through the glass partition.was awesome great steaks too.been back several times.

 

[Canedude08]

I'm not exactly disagreeing with anything since all you did was post a link. I was making a comment about the link. The "Public Ivy list" is just a 20 year old list made by 2 random guys. They also lose a lot of clout when OSU and UGA are on that list lol.

I agree. There are people from those schools that go on and compete with the best, but it is less common since most of the kids that go to those schools didn't end up getting into the Ivys in the first place. Those schools are the next tier down though. They are great schools, but are not on the level of Stanford and the Ivys.

Do us all a favor, stop bootlicking the Ivies. Let's stop pretending that the Ivy League is anything more than a finishing school for the members of the lucky sperm club. Once upon a time, the best and brightest went Ivy, but that isn't the case anymore. It's more about the name recognition than actual scholarship at Ivy League schools right now. Plenty of talented, outstanding people who could have been massively successful at any Ivy League school aren't admitted, while idiots who I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoes were admitted. Most of the Ivys are coasting on reputation at this point. Frankly, a lot of the kids that end up in the Ivies are so ahead of the game in regards to connections, money etc. they could be locked in a closet for 4 years and still beat most of us.

I deal with a lot of Ivy League educated people in my career, let's just say that I'm not all that impressed by most of them. The difference between a talented Ivy League kid, and someone from UMiami, or somewhere like that is miniscule. Talent is talent. Period.

By the way, people turn down Ivy League schools, and end up going elsewhere. I know because I am one of them. I grew up middle class, and while getting into multiple Ivy League schools was easy, justifying taking out loans wasn't. I chose the school I liked from jump, that also made it possible for me to walk out of undergrad with a minimum of debt. I don't apologize for that, and I think it's pathetic, and shameful that you would consistently **** on **** good schools. Texas is a **** good state school(Ironically, it was my safety school as I was admitted under the 10% rule), and no one worth a **** would be ashamed of sending their kid there.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

Do us all a favor, stop bootlicking the Ivies. Let's stop pretending that the Ivy League is anything more than a finishing school for the members of the lucky sperm club. Once upon a time, the best and brightest went Ivy, but that isn't the case anymore. It's more about the name recognition than actual scholarship at Ivy League schools right now. Plenty of talented, outstanding people who could have been massively successful at any Ivy League school aren't admitted, while idiots who I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoes were admitted. Most of the Ivys are coasting on reputation at this point. Frankly, a lot of the kids that end up in the Ivies are so ahead of the game in regards to connections, money etc. they could be locked in a closet for 4 years and still beat most of us.

I deal with a lot of Ivy League educated people in my career, let's just say that I'm not all that impressed by most of them. The difference between a talented Ivy League kid, and someone from UMiami, or somewhere like that is miniscule. Talent is talent. Period.

By the way, people turn down Ivy League schools, and end up going elsewhere. I know because I am one of them. I grew up middle class, and while getting into multiple Ivy League schools was easy, justifying taking out loans wasn't. I chose the school I liked from jump, that also made it possible for me to walk out of undergrad with a minimum of debt. I don't apologize for that, and I think it's pathetic, and shameful that you would consistently **** on **** good schools. Texas is a **** good state school(Ironically, it was my safety school as I was admitted under the 10% rule), and no one worth a **** would be ashamed of sending their kid there.

I'm not bootlicking anyone. I am just stating facts. In general the best and brightest do come out of the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc.

In regards to the "lucky sperm club". Parents who are rich enough to "buy their kid into Harvard" do not make up the majority of Harvard students. Most of the wealthy kids at Harvard had the advantage of the best tutors, elite HSs, SAT prep courses, etc. Not, parents purchased a new wing for the school so they got in.

In addition to that in general smart parents have smart kids. That is just a fact of life. My parents were as broke as you could possibly be, but I will admit that wealthy parents generally have smarter kids.

I agree, the kids on the cusp that ended up at the Dukes of the world could have done really well at the Ivys, but they were beat out by kids who had better ECs or SAT scores. That is just the way life is.

I agree again. Talent is talent. I know some guys who are doing life in prison that are as smart as they come and had they grew up in a different environment they probably would have ended up being very wealthy. However, if we are talking about in general. Schools live Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc have more talented kids than Cornell, Duke, etc. who have more talented kids than schools like UM, UF, etc. all the way until we reach Community college.s

I mentioned this in my original comment. I said "MOST OF THESE KIDS" not "every single one of these kids got denied entry to the Ivies". I am not schitting on any schools. I literally said earlier that Texas is a top school. The other guy I responded to was the one schitting on them.

No one should be ashamed of sending their kids to Hair Salon school or Community college if those are the best schools they got into. I went to UM. So I would never schit on any school besides UF or FSU. However, I am going to do everything in my power to get my kids accepted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. because I have seen first hand how much it helps when applying for your first job.

 

[Trafficante]

I'm not bootlicking anyone. I am just stating facts. In general the best and brightest do come out of the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc.

In regards to the "lucky sperm club". Parents who are rich enough to "buy their kid into Harvard" do not make up the majority of Harvard students. Most of the wealthy kids at Harvard had the advantage of the best tutors, elite HSs, SAT prep courses, etc. Not, parents purchased a new wing for the school so they got in.

In addition to that in general smart parents have smart kids. That is just a fact of life. My parents were as broke as you could possibly be, but I will admit that wealthy parents generally have smarter kids.

I agree, the kids on the cusp that ended up at the Dukes of the world could have done really well at the Ivys, but they were beat out by kids who had better ECs or SAT scores. That is just the way life is.

I agree again. Talent is talent. I know some guys who are doing life in prison that are as smart as they come and had they grew up in a different environment they probably would have ended up being very wealthy. However, if we are talking about in general. Schools live Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc have more talented kids than Cornell, Duke, etc. who have more talented kids than schools like UM, UF, etc. all the way until we reach Community college.s

I mentioned this in my original comment. I said "MOST OF THESE KIDS" not "every single one of these kids got denied entry to the Ivies". I am not schitting on any schools. I literally said earlier that Texas is a top school. The other guy I responded to was the one schitting on them.

No one should be ashamed of sending their kids to Hair Salon school or Community college if those are the best schools they got into. I went to UM. So I would never schit on any school besides UF or FSU. However, I am going to do everything in my power to get my kids accepted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. because I have seen first hand how much it helps when applying for your first job.

I realize that working in Finance and being from NYC, has forced you in many ways to adopt a worldview that is callous & elitist, but making gross generalizations doesn't mean you're stating FACTS: all it proves is that you have acquired a very low level of understanding about the subject at hand.

1.) While it is true that the overwhelming majority of elite colleges in this country are private, it is important to understand WHY. It has everything to do with state legislatures deciding to systematically lower appropriations for higher education during the last four decades. This in turn has caused the price tag at elite colleges to approach absurd levels since colleges are now forced to rely increasingly on tuition, research grants, and charitable contributions to fund operations. This explains why more students are enrolled at elite universities from the top 1 percent in the United States than the entire bottom 60 percent. Specifically 4 in 10 students from the top 1 percent attend elite colleges. Wealth is not the only way students from marginalized, low income, & minority communities are at a disadvantage: when it comes to admission into these "elite colleges", legacy admissions also plays a huge role. Over 42% of private colleges utilize legacy as part of their admissions processes, and at Harvard that number is more than 1/3. Because legacy admissions overwhelmingly favor wealthy, white applicants, in some instances applicants that actually deserve to be admitted end up being denied. This is one of the reasons why Harvard was sued recently for discriminating against Asian Americans. Does any of this remotely sound like a meritocracy to you, or is it just elitism?

2.) The best and the brightest don't just come from the Ivy league, Stanford, or MIT. They also come from Cal-Tech, UC-Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash-U(St.Louis), Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, and a bunch of other liberal arts schools that you never cared to give proper attention or respect to. The reality of the situation is there's actually very little substantively speaking that separates the elite colleges from one another. In many instances the differences are trivial, and can be attributed to prestige hierarchy and people's perception towards schools, as witnessed by how biased Wall St. is towards the ivy league.
- https://www.businessinsider.com/the...16-10#22-williams-college-average-sat-1442-30

3.) The measure of intelligence is also subjective. Some people view intelligence as performing well on exams that test cognitive ability, and some view intelligence by educational attainment. There is no broad, universally accepted definition. Regardless a person's intelligence is not entirely hereditary or a product of genetics: environmental factors also play a huge role in determining a person's cognitive ability. Most empirical research on the matter says that intelligence is attributed 50% to genetics and 50% to environmental factors. If you're able to find empirical scientific based research on the matter I will entertain it, but I doubt you will be able to.

As someone who comes from a lower socioeconomic background, I would hope that you could at least understand & acknowledge the role that wealth plays in determining quality of life in this country. As I have outlined in this post, from the beginning, individuals who come from affluent backgrounds are at a significant advantage when it comes to college admissions, and it is not only merit based. Instead of hoping for a change or trying to remedy the situation, your main focus is making sure that your kids never end up being on the wrong side of the coin. Bravo...

I want you to understand one thing-in your pursuit of wealth & selfish interests, you have become impervious to other people's pain & suffering. The essential nature of life though is that it is non-discriminatory, and social stratification & hierarchies are not natural phenomena, they are man made. Every morning the Sun not only rises for the POS, elitist, Wall St. executive, but also for the struggling farmer in Africa who is dying everyday just to monetize his crop yield, so his family won't starve.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

I realize that working in Finance and being from NYC, has forced you in many ways to adopt a worldview that is callous & elitist, but making gross generalizations doesn't mean you're stating FACTS: all it proves is that you have acquired a very low level of understanding about the subject at hand.

1.) While it is true that the overwhelming majority of elite colleges in this country are private, it is important to understand WHY. It has everything to do with state legislatures deciding to systematically lower appropriations for higher education during the last four decades. This in turn has caused the price tag at elite colleges to approach absurd levels since colleges are now forced to rely increasingly on tuition, research grants, and charitable contributions to fund operations. This explains why more students are enrolled at elite universities from the top 1 percent in the United States than the entire bottom 60 percent. Specifically 4 in 10 students from the top 1 percent attend elite colleges. Wealth is not the only way students from marginalized, low income, & minority communities are at a disadvantage: when it comes to admission into these "elite colleges", legacy admissions also plays a huge role. Over 42% of private colleges utilize legacy as part of their admissions processes, and at Harvard that number is more than 1/3. Because legacy admissions overwhelmingly favor wealthy, white applicants, in some instances applicants that actually deserve to be admitted end up being denied. This is one of the reasons why Harvard was sued recently for discriminating against Asian Americans. Does any of this remotely sound like a meritocracy to you, or is it just elitism?

2.) The best and the brightest don't just come from the Ivy league, Stanford, or MIT. They also come from Cal-Tech, UC-Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash-U(St.Louis), Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, and a bunch of other liberal arts schools that you never cared to give proper attention or respect to. The reality of the situation is there's actually very little substantively speaking that separates the elite colleges from one another. In many instances the differences are trivial, and can be attributed to prestige hierarchy and people's perception towards schools, as witnessed by how biased Wall St. is towards the ivy league.
- https://www.businessinsider.com/the...16-10#22-williams-college-average-sat-1442-30

3.) The measure of intelligence is also subjective. Some people view intelligence as performing well on exams that test cognitive ability, and some view intelligence by educational attainment. There is no broad, universally accepted definition. Regardless a person's intelligence is not entirely hereditary or a product of genetics: environmental factors also play a huge role in determining a person's cognitive ability. Most empirical research on the matter says that intelligence is attributed 50% to genetics and 50% to environmental factors. If you're able to find empirical scientific based research on the matter I will entertain it, but I doubt you will be able to.

As someone who comes from a lower socioeconomic background, I would hope that you could at least understand & acknowledge the role that wealth plays in determining quality of life in this country. As I have outlined in this post, from the beginning, individuals who come from affluent backgrounds are at a significant advantage when it comes to college admissions, and it is not only merit based. Instead of hoping for a change or trying to remedy the situation, your main focus is making sure that your kids never end up being on the wrong side of the coin. Bravo...

I want you to understand one thing-in your pursuit of wealth & selfish interests, you have become impervious to other people's pain & suffering. The essential nature of life though is that it is non-discriminatory, and social stratification & hierarchies are not natural phenomena, they are man made. Every morning the Sun not only rises for the POS, elitist, Wall St. executive, but also for the struggling farmer in Africa who is dying everyday just to monetize his crop yield, so his family won't starve.

“individuals who come from affluent backgrounds are at a significant advantage when it comes to college admissions”

And also a significant advantage when it comes to most things.

So what?

There are always going to be high performers in our system. What’s important is making sure everyone has the opportunity to get in the game. This is what we constantly have to be working on.

But you can’t force or legislate economic equality. You can only try to create or perfect a level playing field so that everyone can participate, after that it’s up to the individual.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

I realize that working in Finance and being from NYC, has forced you in many ways to adopt a worldview that is callous & elitist, but making gross generalizations doesn't mean you're stating FACTS: all it proves is that you have acquired a very low level of understanding about the subject at hand.

1.) While it is true that the overwhelming majority of elite colleges in this country are private, it is important to understand WHY. It has everything to do with state legislatures deciding to systematically lower appropriations for higher education during the last four decades. This in turn has caused the price tag at elite colleges to approach absurd levels since colleges are now forced to rely increasingly on tuition, research grants, and charitable contributions to fund operations. This explains why more students are enrolled at elite universities from the top 1 percent in the United States than the entire bottom 60 percent. Specifically 4 in 10 students from the top 1 percent attend elite colleges. Wealth is not the only way students from marginalized, low income, & minority communities are at a disadvantage: when it comes to admission into these "elite colleges", legacy admissions also plays a huge role. Over 42% of private colleges utilize legacy as part of their admissions processes, and at Harvard that number is more than 1/3. Because legacy admissions overwhelmingly favor wealthy, white applicants, in some instances applicants that actually deserve to be admitted end up being denied. This is one of the reasons why Harvard was sued recently for discriminating against Asian Americans. Does any of this remotely sound like a meritocracy to you, or is it just elitism?

2.) The best and the brightest don't just come from the Ivy league, Stanford, or MIT. They also come from Cal-Tech, UC-Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash-U(St.Louis), Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, and a bunch of other liberal arts schools that you never cared to give proper attention or respect to. The reality of the situation is there's actually very little substantively speaking that separates the elite colleges from one another. In many instances the differences are trivial, and can be attributed to prestige hierarchy and people's perception towards schools, as witnessed by how biased Wall St. is towards the ivy league.
- https://www.businessinsider.com/the...16-10#22-williams-college-average-sat-1442-30

3.) The measure of intelligence is also subjective. Some people view intelligence as performing well on exams that test cognitive ability, and some view intelligence by educational attainment. There is no broad, universally accepted definition. Regardless a person's intelligence is not entirely hereditary or a product of genetics: environmental factors also play a huge role in determining a person's cognitive ability. Most empirical research on the matter says that intelligence is attributed 50% to genetics and 50% to environmental factors. If you're able to find empirical scientific based research on the matter I will entertain it, but I doubt you will be able to.

As someone who comes from a lower socioeconomic background, I would hope that you could at least understand & acknowledge the role that wealth plays in determining quality of life in this country. As I have outlined in this post, from the beginning, individuals who come from affluent backgrounds are at a significant advantage when it comes to college admissions, and it is not only merit based. Instead of hoping for a change or trying to remedy the situation, your main focus is making sure that your kids never end up being on the wrong side of the coin. Bravo...

I want you to understand one thing-in your pursuit of wealth & selfish interests, you have become impervious to other people's pain & suffering. The essential nature of life though is that it is non-discriminatory, and social stratification & hierarchies are not natural phenomena, they are man made. Every morning the Sun not only rises for the POS, elitist, Wall St. executive, but also for the struggling farmer in Africa who is dying everyday just to monetize his crop yield, so his family won't starve.

1. This is true, but the advantages they received generally do make them better candidates. If you grow up with a rich parents who lands you great internships throughout HS and college. Gets you the best tutors. Etc. you are going to be at a massive advantage over someone who worked at McDonalds all their HS and college career trying to pay for their college.

2. I didn't forget them. They are that next tier down and still great schools. A lot of them are actually on par with the lower tier Ivies, but I break the Ivies into 2 tiers. The elite Ivies+ Stanford, MIT, etc. Then the ones like Cornell.

3. Generally I don't include educational attainment in intelligence since you can take a complete moron and have them study for 80 years and they will be "educated" or you could take einstein and stick him in prison at the age of 5 and never teach him anything and he would still be "smart". Assuming intelligence is 50% genetics(the wealthy GENERALLY have this, obviously, you have actors, athletes, people who lucked into it, etc. that aren't passing down elite genetics, but on average they are smarter than poorer people) and the other 50% environmental factors gives an even bigger advantage to wealthier people. They get surrounded by bright minds all through their life in elite schools, elite tutors, elite businessmen, professors, scientists, lawyers, doctors, etc. neighbors and family friends. Also, instead of playing video games all day or hanging on the block while their parents are working. The wealthier kids generally spend a lot more time developing their brains in after school programs and the like.

As far as your last point. I actually spend quite a bit of my free time going to the projects and giving advice to the kids. Not to go to much into it, but I also donate a large amount of my income towards bettering my old community. This is why I get so defensive of the Ivies because in this world, were everyone loves making excuses. "I could have went to Harvard, but couldn't afford it", "Jobs don't care about what school you go to so instead of applying to Harvard I will only apply to FIU", etc. etc. I think it is important to explain to people the narrative is BS and that what school you go to matters.

 

[prinmemo]

Do us all a favor, stop bootlicking the Ivies. Let's stop pretending that the Ivy League is anything more than a finishing school for the members of the lucky sperm club. Once upon a time, the best and brightest went Ivy, but that isn't the case anymore. It's more about the name recognition than actual scholarship at Ivy League schools right now. Plenty of talented, outstanding people who could have been massively successful at any Ivy League school aren't admitted, while idiots who I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoes were admitted. Most of the Ivys are coasting on reputation at this point. Frankly, a lot of the kids that end up in the Ivies are so ahead of the game in regards to connections, money etc. they could be locked in a closet for 4 years and still beat most of us.

I deal with a lot of Ivy League educated people in my career, let's just say that I'm not all that impressed by most of them. The difference between a talented Ivy League kid, and someone from UMiami, or somewhere like that is miniscule. Talent is talent. Period.

By the way, people turn down Ivy League schools, and end up going elsewhere. I know because I am one of them. I grew up middle class, and while getting into multiple Ivy League schools was easy, justifying taking out loans wasn't. I chose the school I liked from jump, that also made it possible for me to walk out of undergrad with a minimum of debt. I don't apologize for that, and I think it's pathetic, and shameful that you would consistently **** on **** good schools. Texas is a **** good state school(Ironically, it was my safety school as I was admitted under the 10% rule), and no one worth a **** would be ashamed of sending their kid there.

You sound bitter. “Getting into multiple Ivy League schools was easy, but I decided not to go.”

 

[Canedude08]

You sound bitter. “Getting into multiple Ivy League schools was easy, but I decided not to go.”

No bitterness here, I made a rational decision, one that I know put me in better position to succeed. Ironically enough, I'm also one of the few people at my workplace that isn't whining about student loans and being crippled by them. Why? Because I realized that chaining myself to a desk for the rest of my life, just to say I went to an Ivy League school is a fool's errand.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

No bitterness here, I made a rational decision, one that I know put me in better position to succeed. Ironically enough, I'm also one of the few people at my workplace that isn't whining about student loans and being crippled by them. Why? Because I realized that chaining myself to a desk for the rest of my life, just to say I went to an Ivy League school is a fool's errand.

I am happy to hear you made the right decision for you, but all the Ivy people I worked with made back what they spent on their Ivy league education within the first year or 2 of working. For them it was certainly the correct decision.

 

[Canedude08]

1. This is true, but the advantages they received generally do make them better candidates. If you grow up with a rich parents who lands you great internships throughout HS and college. Gets you the best tutors. Etc. you are going to be at a massive advantage over someone who worked at McDonalds all their HS and college career trying to pay for their college.

2. I didn't forget them. They are that next tier down and still great schools. A lot of them are actually on par with the lower tier Ivies, but I break the Ivies into 2 tiers. The elite Ivies+ Stanford, MIT, etc. Then the ones like Cornell.

3. Generally I don't include educational attainment in intelligence since you can take a complete moron and have them study for 80 years and they will be "educated" or you could take einstein and stick him in prison at the age of 5 and never teach him anything and he would still be "smart". Assuming intelligence is 50% genetics(the wealthy GENERALLY have this, obviously, you have actors, athletes, people who lucked into it, etc. that aren't passing down elite genetics, but on average they are smarter than poorer people) and the other 50% environmental factors gives an even bigger advantage to wealthier people. They get surrounded by bright minds all through their life in elite schools, elite tutors, elite businessmen, professors, scientists, lawyers, doctors, etc. neighbors and family friends. Also, instead of playing video games all day or hanging on the block while their parents are working. The wealthier kids generally spend a lot more time developing their brains in after school programs and the like.

As far as your last point. I actually spend quite a bit of my free time going to the projects and giving advice to the kids. Not to go to much into it, but I also donate a large amount of my income towards bettering my old community. This is why I get so defensive of the Ivies because in this world, were everyone loves making excuses. "I could have went to Harvard, but couldn't afford it", "Jobs don't care about what school you go to so instead of applying to Harvard I will only apply to FIU", etc. etc. I think it is important to explain to people the narrative is BS and that what school you go to matters.

For an overwhelming majority of people(and employers), the school you went to doesn't matter. Guess what, more people ask me about where I went to law school, then they do about where I went to undergrad. Where you went to school has become an euphemism for your place in the class hierarchy. Period. Outside of extremely class conscious places like Wall Street(Which is something that has made that field staid and in desperate need of legitimate change), it's about WHAT you learned, not WHERE you learned it from. One of the best HR/Headhunter people I've ever dealt with said it succinctly "I don't care if a kid went to community college and then to a school I have to Google. If they can produce for the company that pays my bills, I'll take them over someone that isn't as talented, regardless of where that other person went to school".

Never mind the fact that it's beyond stupid for anyone to risk racking up debt, especially if the difference in education is minuscule at best. Unless the Ivies are going to let you go for **** near free(Which is an impossibility for anyone that isn't dirt poor or filthy rich), you are doing yourself a disservice by taking on that debt. If you are majoring in English, whether you do that at Harvard, or a **** good state school like Michigan isn't going to make a world of difference. The only difference is price, especially if you are an instate student. If you are planning on going into a field that requires you to go to grad school, no one is going to give a **** about your undergraduate years, outside of your GPA and what you did.

 

[Canedude08]

I am happy to hear you made the right decision for you, but all the Ivy people I worked with made back what they spent on their Ivy league education within the first year or 2 of working. For them it was certainly the correct decision.

You realize that there's a big world outside of Wall Street, right? That's all you know, and it's becoming more and more obvious that you have little understanding how the rest of the country and world lives. Most people aren't going to be able to clear six figures in profit in a couple of years post graduation. The typical person is going to be paying back that six figure debt for decades. That's the kind of debt you are racking up to attend an Ivy League school, especially if you are a middle class kid. If you are from an impoverished background, then you are unlikely to pay for much, outside of living expenses(Which can still be pricey, especially in cities like Boston), so it's a good play. Unfortunately, these Ivy League schools admit relatively few kids that can qualify for that free tuition, it's almost like they know that A)The deck is stacked against those poor kids to begin with and B)The people who pay their bills don't really want little Thurston P. Howell III rubbing elbows with some intelligent kid that didn't belong to the yacht club.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

For an overwhelming majority of people(and employers), the school you went to doesn't matter. Guess what, more people ask me about where I went to law school, then they do about where I went to undergrad. Where you went to school has become an euphemism for your place in the class hierarchy. Period. Outside of extremely class conscious places like Wall Street(Which is something that has made that field staid and in desperate need of legitimate change), it's about WHAT you learned, not WHERE you learned it from. One of the best HR/Headhunter people I've ever dealt with said it succinctly "I don't care if a kid went to community college and then to a school I have to Google. If they can produce for the company that pays my bills, I'll take them over someone that isn't as talented, regardless of where that other person went to school".

Never mind the fact that it's beyond stupid for anyone to risk racking up debt, especially if the difference in education is minuscule at best. Unless the Ivies are going to let you go for **** near free(Which is an impossibility for anyone that isn't dirt poor or filthy rich), you are doing yourself a disservice by taking on that debt. If you are majoring in English, whether you do that at Harvard, or a **** good state school like Michigan isn't going to make a world of difference. The only difference is price, especially if you are an instate student. If you are planning on going into a field that requires you to go to grad school, no one is going to give a **** about your undergraduate years, outside of your GPA and what you did.

Of course, they care about your law school compared to your undergrad. Especially if you are a lawyer.

You are missing the point entirely. Everyone with half a brain agrees with what you are saying about talent. I don't care if the kid never went to college. If he can perform better than all the other applicants I would take him. This can be said for anyone on Wall Street.

However, when you get thousands of applications a year. All of them from kids who graduated top of their class from good schools you have the pick of the litter. At that point it is foolish not to take the kids from the Ivies since historically we have noticed they perform better on average.

At this point pretty much all the applicants are high GPA kids from the Ivies so we end up choosing the kids who had the best internships. You don't need to be dirt poor to go to the Ivies for free. Even lower middle class people who barely got in will go for free.

The difference in education probably is minuscule at best. However, that is not the reason you go to an Ivy. You go to get a great first job.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

You realize that there's a big world outside of Wall Street, right? That's all you know, and it's becoming more and more obvious that you have little understanding how the rest of the country and world lives. Most people aren't going to be able to clear six figures in profit in a couple of years post graduation. The typical person is going to be paying back that six figure debt for decades. That's the kind of debt you are racking up to attend an Ivy League school, especially if you are a middle class kid. If you are from an impoverished background, then you are unlikely to pay for much, outside of living expenses(Which can still be pricey, especially in cities like Boston), so it's a good play. Unfortunately, these Ivy League schools admit relatively few kids that can qualify for that free tuition, it's almost like they know that A)The deck is stacked against those poor kids to begin with and B)The people who pay their bills don't really want little Thurston P. Howell III rubbing elbows with some intelligent kid that didn't belong to the yacht club.

Well obviously if you pay 250k to go to Harvard to get a social worker degree you made a big mistake. You should have just went to a local public college. Same goes for other low paying jobs. However, if you are trying to get a job in a competitive field then it is wise to go to an Ivy. If you go to an Ivy with the goal of working on Wall Street. Get great grades. You will get great internships. If you perform well in those internships and maintain your grades you will get a job that will make your payment to the Ivy well worth it. It is not unheard of for kids in these fields to end up making millions a year by the age of 30.

 

[Canedude08]

Well obviously if you pay 250k to go to Harvard to get a social worker degree you made a big mistake. You should have just went to a local public college. Same goes for other low paying jobs. However, if you are trying to get a job in a competitive field then it is wise to go to an Ivy. If you go to an Ivy with the goal of working on Wall Street. Get great grades. You will get great internships. If you perform well in those internships and maintain your grades you will get a job that will make your payment to the Ivy well worth it. It is not unheard of for kids in these fields to end up making millions a year by the age of 30.

There's only one problem with the "Get great internships" strategy: You still have a ton of firms doing the unpaid internship model, which is complete crap. The only thing that ensures is that only people who have someone to foot the bill for living expenses can do it. Occasionally, you'll get someone from NYC who can live at home for the summer that can, but it locks out **** near everyone outside of the top earners.

You are better off going somewhere that is cheaper, getting a quality education, and having the freedom to go out on your own after graduation. Let's be honest, the people who are really changing the game on the Street are in a lot of cases, people who weren't afraid to go on their own. There's no freedom in following the same tired script. Frankly, that script rarely works for those of us who weren't born with a silver spoon in our mouths.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

There's only one problem with the "Get great internships" strategy: You still have a ton of firms doing the unpaid internship model, which is complete crap. The only thing that ensures is that only people who have someone to foot the bill for living expenses can do it. Occasionally, you'll get someone from NYC who can live at home for the summer that can, but it locks out **** near everyone outside of the top earners.

You are better off going somewhere that is cheaper, getting a quality education, and having the freedom to go out on your own after graduation. Let's be honest, the people who are really changing the game on the Street are in a lot of cases, people who weren't afraid to go on their own. There's no freedom in following the same tired script. Frankly, that script rarely works for those of us who weren't born with a silver spoon in our mouths.

That is not exactly true. I grew up as broke as you could believe. Lived in the projects. Single mother(no child support from father). I went to Miami since I got a full scholly, but I still worked all 4 years at the U(basically full time) to pay for my food and dorm and send some money home to help my mom. I still had an unpaid internship every summer and I had an unpaid internship 2 or 3(I don't remember off the top of my head I need to check my old resume) during winter break. Yes, it is easier for the wealthy to work those unpaid internships, but it is not impossible. I actually have seen some really good internships from other cities outside of NYC. You don't need an internship at NYC goldman to get a good wall street job later on. Some kid I work with went to MIT and had an internship with (I believe it was NASA, but it had something to do with space flight). That made him stand out and it helped him a lot. Also, most of the real top of the line NYC internships pay for your housing.

I think it really depends. If you want to work in Finance you go to the best school you get into. If you want to be a teacher or something like that you go to a cheap local school that has connections and sends a lot of students to work with your local school district. Every type of job has their own "track" that is best for their job. If my son wanted to be a social worker I wouldn't pay 70k a year to send him to Harvard, but if my son wanted to be a hedge fund manager, I would.