What you're saying is true - in the case of some individuals,
their interests(learning-wise, at least) could certainly be better
served if they went to smaller colleges(ie.mini-ivies like
Williams, for instance) where they get more individual attention.
Saying that, it might be better for them to be "big fish in small
ponds than small fish in big ponds".
Now, saying that, I gave my example to illustrate the point ranking
doesn't strictly matter - not as what you'd perceive in Singapore
anyway. Look, even comparing among the very top
universities, there's no absolute - you could have an engineering
degree from MIT and MIT could be ranked first for that faculty this
year, but that doesn't mean it'll remain first forever. Hence, in
essence, even in the eyes of employers, what's there to suggest a
MIT graduate should rank more highly than one from Stanford,
Caltech or even UC Berkely? I know this for a fact because I
graduated from Stanford and know of friends who have gone to a
couple of the "elite" colleges(Yale, UPenn, MIT to name a few). So
basically, what I am trying to say is, if I got shortlisted for a
job interview along with another graduate from a top college,
whatever we have achieved(regardless of the school or class of our
degrees) will go out of the window - it's how we perform at the
interview that will determine who gets the job.
Someone mentioned in this thread that people will still go "wow"
even if you graduated from Yale with an engineering degree even
though that faculty is not as well-regarded as their counterparts
from more " tech-oriented " colleges like MIT/Caltech/Stanford.
Yes, this is actually also true. At the end of the day,
employers(in the US, at least) do take into consideration the
"selectivity" of the college you attend. If anyone is
wondering(those who are familiar with the US system, excuse this
part), this is why : when people apply to colleges in the US as
freshmen(ie.undergraduate courses), they're not required to specify
their intended majors even though they're allowed to do so if they
wished. Hence, unlike those following the British education system,
your admission to a particular college has no bearing whatsoever on
your preferred course of study - basically, there's nothing to
suggest you'd stand a better chance of getting admitted to MIT if
you chose to do history(yes, there're history modules even at MIT!)
over engineering. Hence, if employers were looking for someone to
do a job that does not require precise specialisation(ie.jobs of an
engineering nature which a history graduate may not be equipped
with the skills to undertake, for instance), there's literally
nothing to seperate a Harvard engineering graduate from a Stanford
history graduate in terms of who might get the nod for the job.
Ultimately, it's down to the personal qualities that would make a
difference... 