Hacker News Reader

Comment by basseq | Hacker News Reader

So it's a tautology. Prestigious schools attract top talent because top talent goes to prestigious schools. The best way to be successful is to be top talent—regardless of where you go to school for the majority—but top talent are likely to be those people who push and stress and play to win the "collegiate sweepstakes".

View on HN

I think you missed the point of the article. It only matters for certain demographics. The byline says it all: "they can have a big effect if you’re not rich, not white, or not a guy"

I'm not sure what 'rich' means in the article, but if it means 'not poor' then for middle class white males it doesn't matter what school is on your resume.

> for middle class white males it doesn't matter what school is on your resume

That's not what the studies show. What the studies show is that, if you're a well-off white male who is in the top 1% academically then it doesn't matter, long-term financially, where you go to university.

I mean, I found the article interesting but that's a pretty niche bunch of chaps right there.

Disagree, because the article/studies essentially indicate that if you're (for instance) a black female who got into MIT but chose to go to State U for cost reasons you'll see an incredible hit in terms of career progression and future earnings. It argues that if you're poor, a racial minority, or female you should go to the top school you can manage even if it causes temporary debt because the payoff will be large. If you're well off and white and a guy you might as well save on college costs, as the career and earning gains are marginal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com