Re: My take on college
 

I'm too young to know first-hand how going to a good school affects your wealth. But, tons of my friends from high school frequently bitch about how dumb their peers/classes are at their tier 4 or 5 schools.

Re: My take on college
 

What is interesting is how people always relate life success to money.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a 4th year student, i must say that i am kind of seeing this as well. getting a job seems to depend on how well you can bs during an interview, and not much else.

[/ QUOTE ]

getting your first job out of college:

2/3 - who you know
1/6 - grades/major/your college's name recognition
1/6 - bs ability in an interview

Re: My take on college
 

I just like a big, highly regarded college b/c it makes it easier for me to get a job that I consider rewarding, and probably in much less time (and with less effort) than if I went to a worse school.

I think if you are highly motivated, almost anyone (especially those of us fortunate enough to live in first-world countries) can be monetarily successful. But achieving that goal may require much more difficult, unsatisfying work coming from a worse college.

One last point, as cliche as it sounds, money is not everything. I don't know why so many people think it's unfathomable that incredibly intelligent people choose career paths that may be much more intrinsically rewarding, but which pay less. It all boils down to what your priorities are.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably always better to go to, um, a better school... but yeah, some people put too much emphasis on it. You can go to Harvard or whatever and still be a lazy retard.

It's better to be an educated person at a crappy no-name art school than someone that didn't really pay attention to classes at an Ivy league school.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet the lazy retard from Harvard will still have 10x as many recruiting dollars thrown at him before graduation.....

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was at Penn in the 60s, the brilliant students indeed went to grad school "in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields." The middling students went to med school and law school, and the dullest people were in the Wharton School from which they emerged to make a lot of money in business. (The obvious example of the last group is Donald Trump who was at Penn in the Wharton School while I was there.)

This is apparently all effed up from your perspective, since your perspective seems to place the highest priority on making pots of money. But not everyone is motivated by money. Those of us who chose "esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields"--and I was one--did so for the passion of intellectual challenge and the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. We deliberately chose fields that were less rewarding financially, but more rewarding intellectually. We looked down on the Wharton School and people like Donald Trump. Even today I find the Donald unspeakably vulgar, and I would not trade places with him for all the tea in China.

Of course, I went to school in the 60s--before the Reagan years....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is interesting is how people always relate life success to money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money's a really easy way to keep score because it's just a number. Obviously, there are other characteristics that fit the bill, but money's definitely the simplest.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was at Penn in the 60s, the brilliant students indeed went to grad school "in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields." The middling students went to med school and law school, and the dullest people were in the Wharton School from which they emerged to make a lot of money in business. (The obvious example of the last group is Donald Trump who was at Penn in the Wharton School while I was there.)

This is apparently all effed up from your perspective, since your perspective seems to place the highest priority on making pots of money. But not everyone is motivated by money. Those of us who chose "esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields"--and I was one--did so for the passion of intellectual challenge and the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. We deliberately chose fields that were less rewarding financially, but more rewarding intellectually. We looked down on the Wharton School and people like Donald Trump. Even today I find the Donald unspeakably vulgar, and I would not trade places with him for all the tea in China.

Of course, I went to school in the 60s--before the Reagan years....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be surprised. There was a considerable shift in national values during the Reagan administration--remember that sitcom where Michael J. Fox was the conservative, money-oriented kid with the hippy-dippy parents....

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be surprised. There was a considerable shift in national values during the Reagan administration--remember that sitcom where Michael J. Fox was the conservative, money-oriented kid with the hippy-dippy parents....

[/ QUOTE ]

It also might have something to do with Wharton being THE undergrad business school, but there being a lot of others in the same league as Penn for a liberal arts-type education.

Also, Michael J. Fox as a kid? A quick IMDB search brings up "Family Ties", but that was a bit before my time (I would've been 3 or 4 when it went off the air).

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]


I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are u talking about? Wharton has all the retard jocks.