Rich kid's tuition and endowments from their families fund the school to a high level allowing them to pay for highly talented individuals and prestigious research. They might not do as well academically, but still get to trade on the name of having gone to the school
Smart kids get in on scholarships and grants and help uphold the prestige of the university name while getting access to the highly talented professors. They are able to take advantage of this access, do well in the school, and have prestigious results in the real world, move on to be involved in that prestigious research, etc.
You also have the elbow rubbing of the moneyed elite with people that might be very well suited to take that money and help grow it to even larger levels.
That's the idea, anyway. Whether or not it's reality, I don't know. I didn't attend an Ivy League (or quasi-Ivy League in Stanford's case) school. They also of course receive significant money from the government via grants as well, so it's not entirely all coming from the pockets of the rich.
> Rich kid's tuition and endowments from their families fund the school to a high level allowing them to pay for highly talented individuals and prestigious research
Are you predicting donations to Stanford and USC will crater to a level that existentially threatens either institution?
> It's wild that the shorthand for "good school" is what sports division some schools in/around Massachusetts are in.
Nice meme, but that really doesn’t do justice to the reality.
- Seven of the schools that became the Ivy League were “colonial colleges” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_colleges). William & Mary and Rutgers did not become part of the Ivy League, and Cornell (not a colonial college) did.
- They are all research universities, which makes them distinct from many colleges that seem to have similar origins.
- The schools are all in the northeast corridor, but Massachusetts is definitely on the Eastern side of the Ivy geographic area. Ivies center more around colonial era settlements than the state of Massachusetts.
It's intelligence signal laundering. Take 80% really smart people. Now pay $$$ to throw your rich kid in. Out comes 5 Harvard degrees. Your rich kid looks smart now.
They don’t need to be stunningly smart, but they need to look and sound competent enough to be put in charge. The entire system runs on plausible deniability where people can say it’s not nepotism just convincingly enough to avoid scrutiny.
Well, if the majority of Harvard graduates entered the workforce with little to no education, showing up to work hours late and coked out everyday doing diddly-squat, maybe at first nothing would change, but over time all those companies would be overtaken by those run by state school kids, and companies would no longer trust Ivy graduates as good hires.
Investment Banking and Business are about relationships and trust first, then competence. They are dealing with rich clients from the same background, something they've effectively spent their entire life preparing for. I assure you, any SWE could easily digest finance topics, but there is reason they're in SWE and not IB.
> Well, if the majority of Harvard graduates entered the workforce with little to no education
Check.
The actual classroom education at Harvard isn’t that good, imho. There are some signature classes that are definitely amazing, the access to resources for self-directed learning are incredible, and the competition and collaboration with one’s peers can push people to perform at new highs, but the base classroom instruction is generally not very good.
> showing up to work hours late
Maybe
> and coked out everyday
Stereotype, but maybe.
> doing diddly-squat
This can happen with anyone anywhere, imho. That said, what you consider “diddly-squat” may have more value than you think. See below.
> maybe at first nothing would change, but over time all those companies would be overtaken by those run by state school kids
This part of your comment makes me think that you and I see the college and labor markets very differently.
1. There are “worker bees” at elite schools and at state schools. These are the folks that seem to have a tireless ability to complete discrete tasks. The top worker bees at state schools are definitely on par with Ivy worker bees in terms of potential productivity, but not as much on ambition (as a whole).
2. There are “social capital” people at elite schools and at major state schools. These are folks who will rely mostly on their social capital to find work (as an employee or as a company owner). The main differences are that elite schools graduates will more often play for higher stakes often on a national or international level, while the state school folks will more often be playing for relatively smaller stakes on a regional, state, or local level.
3. The social capital people can show up to work late, coked out, and doing what some folks think is diddly squat, as long as they use their social capital to move things forward for their organization. This can be rain making for business deals, connecting the right people for a collaboration, or assembling a team of good worker bees who can do stuff for them. Worker bees tend to see the social capital people as grifters (and some are), but they are often linchpins in certain domains and businesss. Ignore them at your own peril.
4. Last but not least, you get the folks with social capital who are also good worker bees. These folks are pure gold, and they can be found at state schools and elite schools. They are rare. Most are amazing to be around. They frequently do amazing things.
5. Your idea of “state school kids” taking over the world is pure fantasy in my opinion. State school kids simply won’t have the connections or opportunities to do things at a scale that facilitates this.
> and companies would no longer trust Ivy graduates as good hires.
I don’t think that grads of any university are guaranteed good hires, and thinking so is a recipe for disaster.
Ivy grads can be highly productive in a generic corporate context, but only if they are solid worker bees (not every Ivy grad is), and only if you give them and endless number of hoops to jump through with accompanying rewards to get them to mid-career.
Most places of employment aren’t really set up like this.
A friend of mine from a humble background in Michigan decided he wanted to go to NYC and make it in finance. He eventually did.
After paying his dues in lower-ranked jobs in finance, some of his professional acquaintances were starting a hedge fund, and a key part of their strategy had to do with parts suppliers to Detroit car manufacturers.
They immediately realized that they needed a “local” to be their boots on the ground there. Northeast corridor (NEC) elites may have high social standing in the NEC, but they come across as pompous city slickers outside of the NEC. People were reluctant to share information with them due to lack of trust. My friend was able to develop that trust, so he was basically a go between for the Michigan parts suppliers and the NYC financiers.
That symbiotic/parasitic relationship netted him an 8-figure exit and an early retirement in his 40s, with a comparable bump for his NEC-born partners.
