But also see the comment above. I am probably somewhat misinterpreting the data in the strict sense, in what I said above. About as many S&P 500 CEOs come from UW as from Harvard, but you have to consider student body size, so it's not quite the same thing. But I don't think this invalidates the general gist of what I'm saying, which is that you can go to a good State school and still expect to have a fine career.
There is a small subset of undergraduate students that go to public universities who are hidden high achievers with a very strong interest in an area of study. In this sense, they evaluate a college the way a potential PhD student would look at graduate programs - they are more concerned about the department ranking and research activity. If this were the case, a student might very well prefer UW, Berkeley, or UMich over Harvard, especially in a field like CS.
From this angle, it shouldn't be too surprising that this sort of student student would be as likely to come from UW as from Harvard. There's no real point in averaging in a huge student body drawn largely from a single state vs a small undergraduate student body with no in-state percentage requirements, because these students are unlike the other students at either institution. While it's harder to "get in" to harvard as an undergraduate, let's face it - the vast majority of students at either institution are probably not among the very brightest of the very brightest. Those statistical oddities are a small sliver, and I actually suspect that they can be difficult to detect through test scores and GPAs earned from age 15-17. These students often just don't give enough of a crap, or they may be far too focused on their intellectual interests to put enough time into the GPA game.
If UW has a strong CS department, it makes just as much sense that these odd outliers would come from there as an ivy.
Obviously the school you attend doesn't determine your future, but it matters. Harvard is better than UW and any other state school. You could share whatever stats you want, but Harvard is better, and using racism (lets call race-based discrimination what it really is) to limit a race's access to a better school is not something that misinterpreting CEO stats will ease.
Obviously the school you attend doesn't determine your future, but it matters. Harvard is better than UW and any other state school. You could share whatever stats you want, but Harvard is better
Maybe it is, but quantify that. And compare the best care outcomes from attending Harvard with people's actual ambitions. For most people, I still contend that going to Harvard (or not) is fairly irrelevant.
and using racism (lets call race-based discrimination what it really is) to limit a race's access to a better school is not something that misinterpreting CEO stats will ease.
Again, just to be clear, I am not trying to support racism or any sort of discrimination. I think admissions should be strictly race-blind, gender-blind, ethnicity-blind, religion-blind, etc. I'm just pointing out that if you get excluded from your $IVY_OF_CHOICE for whatever reason, you aren't consigned to the scrap heap of life. It's not the end of the world, and it's probably not even a big deal for most people. Now if you absolutely, 110% have your heart set on getting elected President someday, then I guess all bets are off.
"Harvard is better than UW and any other state school."
Well, I can't let that statement go by without challenging it. At the PhD level, I just don't agree that Harvard is better than UC Berkeley overall. It's pretty close, but I think UCB has slightly greater breadth and depth at the PhD level.
Like I said in an earlier comment, there is a type of very high achieving undergraduate who looks at and engages with a university more the way a grad student would. There are plenty of reasons someone like this might choose UCB or UMich over an ivy league school.
I would love to see that data, if you could make the effort. Because I have no faith that this statement is true.