Slashdot Mirror
Success Despite College Rejection
selan writes "Are those who are rejected by prestigious schools destined to lead mediocre lives? Or are great people more likely to succeed if they were rejected by top universities? An inspirational column in the Washington Post discusses the "Spielberg Effect", a theory that it really doesn't matter where you went to school."
The discussions center around oral and written skills and personality. Specifically, whether the person's personality would be a good fit
Absolutely. In successful companies, labs, (whatever), you want people who are capable, productive, and can work and play well with others. For instance, it was once reccomended to me by our former chair of neurosurgery that you take the potential job candidate out to dinner. If you cannot eat with that person or are uncomfortable there, they will never work out in your business or lab and for the most part I have found this to be true. (another interesting bit....I have found that some of the best scientists are also pretty damn good cooks).
As for the ivy league school bit you talked about earlier, it's interesting that it seems to get you into the door at many places (especially in England and in certain places on the east and west coasts), but getting into the door is no guarantee of success. I have seen more than one knucklehead from an ivy league school suck up many resource $$'s before leaving for another position having accomplished nothing. As for me going to an ivy league school, yeah, I was accepted into Stanford based upon college entrance scores, but finding out tuition was going to be $25,000/year, I was shocked and dismayed as I did not know where I was going to find the money to go to a state school at the time. However, I am happy with my decision not to go as I did not have to take out loans and any extra money I did not spend on tuition simply went into investments. Would it have been nice to go? Yes, but not for $100k and financial aid was not guaranteed.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Please back up your assertions. This is completely false. I speak as a college counselor with about 8 years of experience.
It does matter what undergraduate college you go to, but reputation, prestige, and ranking have nothing to do with it. Here is the principle:
When you look at results, most of the prestigious schools are defeated, beaten down, and put to shame by a relatively unknown class of schools, the small liberal-arts college. The mechanism should be obvious: small classes; professors who love to teach, have no research burden, and take an interest in your work; broad education that teaches you mental skills, not just job skills.
Since we're talking about grad school, let's take the percentage of graduates from college that eventually earn a PhD (from any institution, not necessarily the same one). So we're talking about your personal chances of getting a future PhD as a result of undergraduate college choice. Here's the top of that list:
I'll leave out the rest. Buy Loren Pope's excellent book Looking Beyond the Ivy League if you want the rest of the chart. Interesting to note, Princeton is the first of the vaunted Ivies to make this list at #21 (11.7%), and only because it is the one that behaves most like a small college. The next Ivy to show its face is Harvard at #37 (9.0%). Three of the Ivies and Stanford don't make top 50.
The list plays out the same way whatever measure you choose: MCAT scores, grad/med/law school admission rates (often 30-100% better than the prestige colleges), leaders and prominent figures produced, you name it.
Although their population is collectively tiny, the small liberal-arts schools produce half the professional scientists in this country. (Don't be fooled into thinking you need a technical school for a technical education.)
And now, here's the real kicker: many of these schools are not very selective. Reed, #3 on the list, will take you if you've got a B+ average, around 1300 on the SAT, and some demonstrable intellectual curiosity. But they will invariably turn out graduates that surpass those at famous schools.
Schools like Harvard deserve no credit for admitting "successful" people and then graduating "successful" people. I went there, and it improved me not at all. It's much more impressive to see a school take in an average student and make them great; or a good student and make them stellar.
---
Dum de dum.
Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.
Anyways, I got deferred at MIT, which essentially means rejected. Why?
No, it means deferred. I think you're assuming and awful lot about what the admissions people care about, over-estimating your own credentials, and under-estimating your peer's. MIT is one of the preeminent technology schools in the world. You are probably a great student, but the number of applicants to a school like MIT is enormous. Out of a pool this large, there are bound to be people better qualified than you. Them's the breaks. I don't think MIT gives cares about if you played a sport or not.
I'm applying there for grad school (among many other places). I will graduate from Virginia Tech this May with a 3.6 in-major GPA and about the same for my cumulative GPA. I'm doing undergraduate research next semester. I'm a computer science major with a minor in math and a minor in physics. And I think my chances of getting into MIT are slim.
Things like President of National Honor Society club, etc. There was a kid at my school who got in early at Princeton with a 1250 SAT (thats not good) because he played water polo. Last year, one of my friends won the National Merit Scholarship to attend Johns Hopkins....and they wouldnt even admit him!
An SAT score of 1250 is just fine. SAT scores are bunk. They demonstrate one thing: your ability to take the SATs. You don't know why these people were accepted and rejected, so stop pretending.
For my chosen profession, law, where you went to school makes all the difference in the world - and it matters not a hill of beans.
If your goal is to end up on the U.S. Supreme Court, well, five of the nine current justices went to Harvard Law (Darth Bader graduated from Columbia but went to Harvard), two went to Stanford, and the other two went to Northwestern and Yale. Roughly the same goes for most federal district and appellate judges.
Want to work for Bill's daddy at the 213-attorney Seattle home office of Preston, Gates and Ellis? Ask yourself, where do they do on-campus interviews? Aside from the local schools (Seattle U. and the Universities of Washington and Oregon), PG&E recruits from Bezerkely, Columbia, U of Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, Northwestern, NYU, Penn, Stanford, UVA, and Yale. Only about a third of their hires come from the local schools, and most of those are from the ultra-super-mega-hyper-prestigious (just ask 'em, they'll tell ya) UW. In other words, your chances of being hired by them are about zero if you did not attend any of those schools - and this firm is based in Seattle. I would submit that most large law firms have similar hiring practices.
Before giving up hope, though, consider what it's like to work there. Sure, the pay is good and the resources are near infinite, but the hours are long - 100 hour weeks are the norm rather than the exception. What are you doing then, practicing real law, representing real clients? Hardly. Most of the work involved is adding a few more zeroes to the end of some already-obscenely-wealthy white guy's bottom line. Finally, the careers there are generally quite short - a select few make partner, but most are cut loose after a few years.
Okay, so what's a young non-Ivy JD grad to do? Practice real law, of course. Represent ordinary people in real-world disputes and actually go to court once in awhile. Most attorneys make their living this way and their clients don't much care where they went to law school.
In sum, the black-and-white answer is that there is no black-and-white answer.
Wow, the infamous "OH HOW I ENVY AMERICAN STUDENTS" troll.
Either way, I haven't seen it in ages. This one is good enough for PhysicsGenius
I really hate Dan Patrick.
To compare the eventual Ph.D. production of whole institutions is misleading in the case of MIT. MIT is hevily weighted towards the engineering degrees, unlike the liberal arts schools like Mudd or Reed. In engineering, the BS is the terminal degree. These people get snapped up and put right to work. They don't need to get an advanced degree. A better comparison would be of chemistry departments, say, where one must get a doctorate to avoid being just a lab servant.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine