| Topic Name: |
Ivy vs. Non |
| Message Name: |
sooooo sooo smart |
| Date Posted: |
03/07/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
This post should just be shut down. First, most of you have no clue what you are talking about. Second, when most of you have actually gotten out into the real world and worked for one (1) day you will realize how silly you actually are.
When most of you have to produce in the real world the cream will rise to the top, and guess what??? As each year goes by there is less and less Ivy in it. Why.... because over the last 20 years organizations have come to realize that results are what count. Whether they are driven by an Ivy league degree or a medicore guy from Northwestern.
I went to Northwestern and got my MBA from Wharton. and from experience I can tell you there are idiots, geniuses, and tree huggers at Northwestern, Harvard, Penn,.... Most of you H/Y/Ps (whatever you want to call yourselves) will realize it when peers from Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, UCLA, Berkley... start passing you professionally.
Actually most of you are pretty smart,.... you are smart enough to recognize that you do not have the guts to take a risk so you go to the best school you can get into. No argument there, but think for a second. If you were really soooooo smart and sooooo much better prepared you would not care what school you attended because you would know that you would be sucessful regardless of the circumstances or you would already have done something worthwhile.
In conclusion, I hope that as next graduate of a substandard or state school passes you on the way up the ladder you finally figure out that sucess is about luck, hard work, and connections. An Ivy may give you one.
BY THE WAY, if you are under the age of 22 or have never worked a job after college, please stop wasting peoples time on these posts by spewing sound and fury signifying nothing. |
| Message: |
Some kids of extremely rich and powerful families go to UCLA. Some idiots go to Harvard. There are some brilliant people at UMich and actually a few hotties at Stanford.
Most of the posts here score an absolute zero for lucidity of thought and reek of the type of yapping, meaningless blather of self-centered know-nothings (from whatever school or background) who seem to forget that a) the world is not black and white and b) your personal opinion does not shape the way the world works.
Take the post I'm responding directly to: "If you were really soooooo smart and sooooo much better prepared you would not care what school you attended because you would know that you would be sucessful regardless of the circumstances or you would already have done something worthwhile."
One question: Does a skilled musician purposely avoid the best instructors and schools because, damn it, I'm so damn talented anyway?
If you want to waste your time purposefully setting up unnecessary obstacles to your goals, please...feel free to do so.
That being said, me Ivy, you State is not the functional equivalent of me Tarzan, you Jane.
Most of my friends ended up at Cal, LA, or one of the many Cal States or JCs in the area. Is the average Stanford student harder working and more intelligent than most of my friends? Of course. Are they all? Hell no. If some of my friends had studied more and smoked out less in HS, they could have had an even shot at the top tier.
Does having a top tier school pedigree help in the job search? You bet. It won't make you an MD at an i bank, nor will it land you the CEO spot at GE. A lot of undermotivated Ivy kids disappear into the realm of unemployment/crappy jobs. But if you've got the inclination to actually make an effort, it does a nice job of getting your foot in the door for interviews, especially if you're one of 500 students applying, all with little to no relevent work experience.
Is it fair that all other things being equal, a Stanford grad will get more visibility and attention than a Berkeley grad? (insert your favorite ivy vs. state/libbie arts school here) Actually, yes. Here's why:
Imagine you're a recruiter at at investment bank. You have 8 analyst spots open for a branch office, and anywhere from 200-500, maybe even more resumes to choose from. Forget all the corporate PR about paying attention to each resume. YOUR DUTY IS TO CULL THAT DOWN TO 20-35 interviewable candidates ASAP. Why that few? Because investment bankers have better things to do than spend their days interviewing every bright-eyed, chirpy wannabe banker out there. The first cut is done almost purely on the basis of that one page resume. Do you have time to weigh how Bobby from UCLA's GPA relates to Dan's similar one from Stanford? Can you decide who has a better personality? Can you do this across a matrix of comparing 300 people against 300 others? Do you even have the information, based on this one resume, to make such personal distinctions? There are a few hard facts in a resume, and they end up getting 90% of the attention. School? Major? GPA? Prior internship/work? Minus people who have connections, that's how the first 90% end up getting culled. If you've secured that first magical interview, your school pedigree fades and personal/personality issues become much more important (excluding, of course, the occasional asshole Ivy MD who thinks anything less is dogshit).
|
|
