Slashdot Mirror
Is Going To an Elite College Worth the Cost?
Pickens writes "Jacques Steinberg writes in the NY Times that the sluggish economy and rising costs of college have only intensified questions about whether expensive, prestigious colleges make any difference. Researchers say that alumni of the most selective colleges earn, on average, 40 percent more a year than those who graduated from the least selective public universities, as calculated 10 years after they graduated from and found that 'attendance at an elite private college significantly increases the probability of attending graduate school, and more specifically graduate school at a major research university.' But other researchers say the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution may be more important, in the long run, than how prominently and proudly that institution's name is being displayed on the back windows of cars in the nation's wealthiest enclaves."
Its not about whether or not the degree you get there is any better if you email your CV to a company you found on a jobs site.
Its about if the preppy boy you shared a room with can get you a job at his dad's company.
If they're swayed by the big H on your resume, great! Maybe you'll be able to pay off your student loans slightly faster otherwise. Or you could just go to the much cheaper, less pretentious school and get the same degree without the financial insolvency. Your choice.
You should turn signatures off.
At Duke I was pretty much told "Go buy the textbook [$200+] and come to class if you have questions [which probably won't be answered]." The profs were just that. Profs. Not teachers. They were more interested in their research than educating the lowly undergrads.
I switched to a state school. I actually have TEACHERS now! (at 1/10th the price!)
the distribution is not even. I've found complete idiots at some top schools, but I've also found smart people who are able to capitalize on the name of their institution to get interesting research problems to work on. That's almost definitely not exclusive to Ivy+, but is probably harder to find once you go down the ladder from places like Penn State and Illinois and GT, and 'flagship' institutions.
Are those that go to the big elites more connected anyway, thus enabling them to obtain the higher paying jobs out of college? I would assume a Rockefeller could go to community college and still land a rather well paying job. Who you know and all that jazz...
We have elite subjects (educations). For example Med. school is really hard to get into, whether you try at UvA (University of Amsterdam) or something like the middle-of-nowhere UG (Groningen University).
On the other hand, there are relatively few requirements for getting into Social Sciences.
I don't get the USA system. What's the worth of an education the market isn't waiting for, even if you attended the most prestigious university? Harvard art students still don't become CEOs.
I myself am studying Law at the University of Amsterdam and there is no elitism whatsoever with regard to the university. There is, however, a lot regarding universities in general compared to colleges and between studies. (e.g. "Law is better than art history!")
Makes more sense. Please tell me your stories, I'm really interested.
The article seems to assume that lots of folk attending elite schools are paying sticker for their education. From my understanding that's not the case.
With the move to substantially increase tuition at all universities in England, there will be growing comparison against the sticker price at the top US schools. That, of course, is an unfair comparison as top US schools while undoubtedly expensive also have exceptional financial aid packages.
While an in-state public university tuition will almost always be the most affordable, many will be able to attend top private schools for a similar amount. Very few will be paying the $45-50k talked about in the article.
Are they considering selection effects at all? Yes, those who go to Ivy league may earn that much more - but would the same people have earned that much less if they for some reason didn't?
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
NOPE waste a doh....
From what I have seen it is the close personal contacts among wealthy families that make the difference and not the actual education. There are not so many people that can make a few phone calls and bring heavy investment money into a situation. After all, how many people can invest multi-millions in any project? They tend to know each other and their family members have the path prepared for them due to endowments to old ivy.
So they say that you earn more if you went to a highly selective school than a non-selective one. Ok, fine, but the problem is that it doesn't mean you earn more BECAUSE you went to that school. The thing is if the school is being highly selective, it is getting only the best and brightest students, not to mention motivated. Those people are likely to go on to better things because they are smart, motivated, and so on.
What you need to examine for something like this is how it compares between people that went to these schools and people that could have, but didn't. Those who had the grades and test scores, maybe even applied, but elected to go to a state school instead. My bet? Not much difference.
In the job market you'll find that your university education matters little past your first job. It isn't 100% irrelevant or anything, but employers start to care a whole lot more about experience and references than they do about education. Where you went to school and what your GPA was will take a back seat to what you've done at work.
Then, of course, in terms of it being "worth it," you have to consider the costs. Suppose you can go to a public school on scholarship, and the course load will allow you to work to cover other expenses. You can come out with a 4 year degree and zero debt. Now suppose you go to Harvard and have to pay $50,000 a year in tuition, and have no time to work so you accrue $15,000 in other living costs. You get out and owe $260,000, presuming interest was handled during your time in school (with costs that high, probably not). You now have to pay that, and its interest down. So you HAVE to make a lot more to break even. The money you spend on repaying your outstanding loans is money a person who did not accrue them could put in savings or invest.
I certainly wouldn't tell people not to go to a top school, but I'd say do so only if you can afford it. If they give you a scholarship, or if your family has plenty of money to support you, then sure, go for it. Really can't hurt, though make sure you do research because some schools are better for one thing than others. MIT is famously bad for undergrads, good for grads. However trying to pay for the whole thing just because you managed to get in? Hmmm, I doubt that's very smart. You'd have to be assured a good bit more money, and that it would consistently stay higher, than if you didn't to make it worth it in the long run.
Don't go take your under-graduate degree from a college that is famous for its graduate program, you will never see your professors, just their graduate student teaching assistants.
You should pick a school that is "known for" the program you are going to take at the level you are going to take it. That can be well worth it.
And the definition of famous needs to be curtailed. As some professionals in the field you intend to pursue whether what schools they "know are good". The answers to this are almost always rather surprising and often include some very good near-by or state schools.
Schools "earn their branding" for a reason, but you have to _really_ _check_ the brand details and you also have to make sure that it isn't expired. Only the professionals in the field will know if the school that is famous for X to the general populace is really sitll famous for X amongst the topical peerage.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Though there is a flipside to that: High end schools are often well connected themselves, as are their faculty, so going there can get you connections. Thing is that tends to be more true on a per-program basis. So in the event you have a field you really want to be in, particularly if it is something involving graduate work, then you need to look at what professors are good in that and choose the school accordingly. May turn out a "lesser" school in fact has a better, more connected, program in the area of your interest.
But yes, it is another problem with the study. If the people have the connections anyhow, and a job is "waiting for them" so to speak, then the school they go to is not all that relevant.
Actually, I both agree and want to push this further.
Although he was phrasing it rather snarky, the AC elsewhere who said it was about the preppy contacts and schmoozing was part right - if you're a people-person and know how to be in the popular crowds, the Who-You-Know factor can be an instant ticket.
However, I treated a degree as "something to defend" and didn't want a glaring Scarlet Letter following me around. I agree that the undergrad experience in some of the Name Schools is awful and a borderline-scam. I switched to a state school and started on a mostly ordinary business career.
But Education is the next big Bubble. I was in Uni in a precisely dated "last of the old" time slots - 1993-1997. A typical undergrad course = 2 textbooks, "40 podcasts" and your choice of "2 answers per podcast + 1 office hour". Thanks to the RIAA's screaming, we now know that 40 podcasts = ... $0! And now the Two-Questions can be answered on the net. So the real price of the class is a $50/hour "consulting hour" plus the rent for the dorm + meal ticket.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Many of the most elite schools have a "legacy admissions" policy (that's how the C-student George W. Bush managed to get into Yale). It gives the children of alumni priority admission, because they want their richer alumni to keep contributing money, and denying little Biff or Muffy their admission would be bad business. It's affirmative action for the rich.
The only choice is between state/public schools and private schools, as cost of private school do not vary according to quality/reputation.
USC costs about the same as Stanford, and I know where I would send my kids between these two. On the other hand, if it was Berkeley vs. Standford, the cost would be a big factor.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
(warning: anecdotal evidence ahead)
Dunno... I recently had to sit in as technical on a metric ton of interviews for open IT positions here where I work. I turned down an IT ops management candidate who had a Masters' Degree in Comp Sci and 10 years of management experience, but never held down a management position at any one company for more than 3 years (the winning candidate had only a 4-yr EE degree, but nearly 20 years' experience managing at an F100 company).
I also talked them into throwing out resumes of college grads with little experience in favor of High School degree holders with more (and demonstrable) experience.
Long story short, a degree only tells me (and most folks I know in the field) one thing: The candidate can be dedicated towards a goal, and is willing to put up with some BS to get there. It's a differentiator, sure... but it's bupkis compared to practical, hands-on experience, and a candidate who rides on his or her sheepskin is less valuable than one who has none but shows initiative, curiosity, and drive.
Before you say it, you're talking to a former EE, and someone who has taught CompSci (and was licensed and affiliated w/ the state board of regents) at a college for six years.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I went to Stanford for Computer Science + Management Science and can emphatically say yes.
Let this be a lesson to all who think about majoring in art history or philosophy and smoke pot all thru four years.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Depending on the field, a degree can be pretty worthless (monetary wise) on average. Some degrees have jobs that pay little more than no degree, with a mountain of debt behind them, and may even pay less overall because of that debt load.
SSC
We have elite subjects (educations). For example Med. school is really hard to get into, whether you try at UvA (University of Amsterdam) or something like the middle-of-nowhere UG (Groningen University). On the other hand, there are relatively few requirements for getting into Social Sciences. I don't get the USA system. What's the worth of an education the market isn't waiting for, even if you attended the most prestigious university? Harvard art students still don't become CEOs. I myself am studying Law at the University of Amsterdam and there is no elitism whatsoever with regard to the university. There is, however, a lot regarding universities in general compared to colleges and between studies. (e.g. "Law is better than art history!") Makes more sense. Please tell me your stories, I'm really interested.
Who am I going to hire in a recession? A guy from Kansas State U or someone from M.I.T.? I would pick M.I.T. if both candidates were equally qualified. Experience counts more of course but the deal breaker would be the school.
The debt ... well the guy from Kansas Sate working at Target will make more than you. 50% of yoru income will just go to payback loan and you will need a 2nd job to survive and eat due to the outrageous cost. But in 5 years when you are a manager you can then start to make up the difference. In 30 years when you are getting ready for retirement you will see the difference in your bank account. It just wont show for awhile due to the high outragous costs.
Now if you do not find an I.T. job then you are wasting money. Some of you just wont work in I.T. Indians do these jobs now mostly and it is very competitive. Cross your fingers and take risks appropriately. Also do not bring in more than 100k in debt. Keep that as the limit.
http://saveie6.com/
I swear I've read this before, and the consensus was that when they compared people who got accepted to the school but didn't go to those who actually went to the school, there wasn't much of a difference in income. The very brighest just tend to make more money.
The only exception is if you're a minority, in which case you should do everything you can to get into the ivy league school.
it's like buying a top of the range car. If you're a good enough driver to make use of the high performance then you'll reap the rewards. If you aren't interested in pushing the limits and only use it for day-to-day driving to the shops, or commuting then you might as well save your money (personal vanity notwithstanding) and spend the cash you save for something else.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It depends on the cost. I was lucky enough to get a place at Cambridge University in the days when there were no tuition fees for university in the UK so going there cost no more than any other university (you just had to pay or accommodation, food and books....and the odd beer or two! ;-). I got a fantastic education which has been exceptionally useful in getting a career in academia. So I'd say it was definitely worth it.
Of course nowadays students at Cambridge will be looking at £9,000/year tuition fees with lower fees of £3-6,000/year elsewhere thanks to the UK government's appalling mismanagement of education. With fees like that I would have had to think long and hard before going. Partly because of the cost but also partly because selecting student's based on parental income rather than academic ability will mean lowering the education standards and a worsening of the student experience as the fraction of those of us who went through the state school system is reduced.
I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to sound like i'm bragging.
I have worked with people much smarter than myself, and with far more education, but I make more money than any of the peers i work with.
Right now I've managed to find people with startups, taking over their technology in exchange for equity and very meager wages. I now own part of multiple profitable companies and I'm making enough money to be worried about the Obama tax cuts. Seriously, I'm making more money than I ever imagined i would while I was in college.
Why do people who go to Harvard, Yale or Brown seem to do well? Because the type of person that can even get into that school is going to have a higher chance of succeeding than the person who is too lazy to finish community college and would rather spend a night playing World of Warcraft than learning a new concept or technology relating to your field of study or career.
The bottom line is this, you're not going to break out of a $100k(sh) year salary range unless you figure out how to market yourself and partner with people who can sell. As engineers, we're living in a fantasy world of the merits of our brilliant ideas and technology will sell the product itself. It's flatly not true in my experience. You have to network, and if you don't know how to network, give up your product to someone that will. If you do that, that person could make you rich.
But back to schooling, I do believe expensive colleges are worth it. There is a reason that a number of the billionaires of our generation have come out of schools like that. People there are connected, they have family with money and resources, importantly the capital to get new ideas off the ground.
If i can give anyone advice, it's to realize what your talents are, and be realistic where your shortcomings are. You have to round-out your technology with marketing, as much as it burns.
I went to Stanford for Computer Science + Management Science and can emphatically say yes.
It's Sunday. You're posting on Slashdot.
You're impressing exactly who now?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If you have the money (or want the debt), go to a "name" school for the highest degree you plan to pursue. If you set out to get a Masters degree, then you can get your Bachelors at a less recognized school (such as a decent quality state school). You just don't want to get the lower degree(s) from a low-quality school (e.g. no accreditation, bad reputation, degree mill, etc.), because that could impact your ability to get into the higher-level program. For the most part, once you have the higher-level degree, nobody cares where you started, so don't waste money and effort (e.g. busting your ass for good grades at a high-difficulty school, when an easier program somewhere else would get you to the next level) at the beginning.
If you aren't sure about the higher-level degree, or you don't always have good follow-through, go ahead and go to a bigger "name" school to start with.
How would you calculate the average worth of a college that costs money compared to any university in for example Sweden, where you're actually paid some money to attend? Worth/monetary unit should be pretty good for most people.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
It's not about the quality of the education, or even the prestige of the institution on your resume.
It's about being around the people most driven to be successful. It drives you to try equally hard to succeed, gives you an opportunity to learn from people who are or will be successful, and allows you to build relationships with the people most likely to need you as a business partner or employee later.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
some of the nation's wealthiest are good old boys where there family will get jobs any ways and they don't need to go to any College but do so as part the high class system.
What one goes to college for these degrees is less of the degree, but more of being able to bag an internship. Companies want known goods, and they receive reams full of resumes from people who have degrees from everywhere from Elbonia U all the way from MIT/Harvard/Yale/Miskatonic graduates in the top 10% of the class.
The key in college which isn't told to most students is college isn't about getting grades and beer bong slamming. It is about getting internships and contacts so when graduation day is at hand, there is not just jobs lined up [1], but there is an actual position, contract, and start date ready for you the second you get out.
[1]: Jobs lined up mean jack squat. Companies get shut down, or they go into hiring freezes. There is a big difference from having a position obtained from an internship than having "jobs lined up".
Is going to a University at all worth the cost?
I was a computer geek from elementary school and knew where my career was heading. After an addiction to Ultima Online that resulted in too many absences I was given a choice of retaking a whole 6-month semester of high-school and being separated from my peers or dropping out of school. After a few months lounging around and playing the game some more I went to work in a large computer chain doing desktop and printer repairs, then worked as a junior server & desktop admin at an account firm trying to become a Dot-com, then started as a Wintel Server Admin (Systems Analyst) in a major Wall Street investment bank, and after 9/11 I worked for most of Wall Street firms as a contractor doing essentially the same thing making well over 6-figures.
When the last economic slump hit even New York I took a position last year to move to Houston Texas to work for a major health care/hospital organization and I've been working as a Senior Windows Server Admin. I'm much happier now in this new city and the quality of life here is much better than what I had in NYC, even though I took a 20% pay cut but still remained in the 6-figure range with a higher or equal pay rate than some who have gone to universities.
That's my story and I sometimes wonder how it would have turned out if I did go to a university? Would I have been working at a more difficult and prestigious job than a server admin making more money? Would I be happier? Or would I have turned out like some of my friends who went to college and came back no smarter or more educated but with a large financial debt making half as much money as I am?
Would you like a hand to get off your very high horse sir?
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
After I graduated from MIT and went out into the "real world", everyone was like, we'll hire you because you can do anything. And if there was any truth in that, it came mostly as self-fulfilling prophecy; I owe much of my success to the simple faith my first bosses gave me. Tell anyone that they'll be great in some way they haven't yet realized and get them to really believe it and see what happens. The effect of a high-value degree is a double-edged sword, though, as it can set internal expectations that are extremely difficult to shed. I have to say, looking back, the effect of the education itself was quite inconsequential.
he attended Harvard, met Billyboy and became later a very rich man!
However, it all worked out for the best. I had a small scholarship and because the tuition was so low I was able to graduate with no debt. I was in the honors program and had my pick of the most interesting classes and professors. My department was pretty small, and I was able to join a research group my freshman year and got a lot of valuable experience in microelectronic fabrication. Also because my school had relatively loose course requirements (unlike U Chicago for example) I was able to take whatever I wanted my senior year (Jackson and Sakurai to all you physics buffs). I had my pick of graduate schools, and I ended up with a fellowship to my favorite. While some of my peers are struggling with their loan payments, I can think about a house. Even more importantly, I also have the freedom to take an interesting but low-paying job when I graduate.
At the end of high school I felt pretty jaded about how it all turned out, but now I see it was for the best. YMMV, but worked out well for me.
but they should have apprenticeship not work for free internships that are not what internships are meant for as you are to being picking up coffee and other stuff like that or replace a some one who they where paying to do the same job.
Yes, you build up a network of contacts in the world of the most successful people. But that is important. But interacting with successful people does more than just give you "contacts"; there is inherently automatically a "mentoring" effect.
"But other researchers say the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution may be more important, in the long run"
This is theoretically true at an individual level. If I think to my own days in a third-world mediocre public school and university, I would say I ultimately managed to get a good education 'in spite of' my school/university, not because of it --- but even so, I often performed very poorly (regretfully), and if I had to name THE single-biggest thing that negatively influenced my performance, I would have to say it was being surrounded by almost 100% uniformly poor-performing peers; they were stupid, they were lazy, they didn't care, learning was the least important thing imaginable, and stupidity and laziness was basically celebrated. When 99.9% of a child's peers are like that, as happened with me, it is almost impossible not to be negatively influenced and 'dragged down' to some degree.
Now, many years later, I have a baby on the way, and have to start thinking about where to send her someday. And I definitely feel that if I can afford it, I want her in one of the top-notch universities. Why? Not because I'm expecting miracles from the professors or infrastructure, but because I know she is most likely to be surrounded by a comparatively higher percentage of peers who are amongst those in society with the highest focus and motivation on hard work and success.
It is oddly seldom mentioned, but beyond parenting and teachers, I think the quality of peers that your child sits with must have a huge influence on their outcomes.
The other reason is that I indeed want my children to mingle with society's successful people, not just to build contacts, but because there is an inherent mentoring effect. Even spending a day with someone highly successful at something can make a young persons entire career. The most successful people in finance and investing, tend to have had top-notch mentors, and you can mostly only find those people in the upper echelons.
Like it or not, many of the most successful IT entrepreneurs etc. do come from backgrounds that allowed them to attend top-notch universities, and there are reasons for that.
Can children be successful in cheaper schools, sure, of course, but suddenly when parenthood looms I just think I want the statistically best chance for my kids, so they can have opportunities I never had.
I realize that the article was specifically about costs and return on investment but... Can somebody else join me in challenging the idea that money is why we should educate ourselves?
40 percent more a year
So in ten years, they get paid 400% more?
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
I'd have to agree with what you're saying.
I have no degree to speak of, however decent people skills (meaning I can wear a suit and talk my way through a decent presentation in front of a decision-making audience) and loads of free time spent learning development (the language doesn't really matter) gave me the opportunity to fly around the world with a 140k+ euro a year job at age 24.
In my first year of employment, I negotiated two pay raises, and in the second, negotiated a tech lead position for APAC at the company. I left, and now went from C++ dev to product manager in 5 months time. And yes, wearing a suit without being asked, and inviting people for golf is part of it.
Going to an elite school is worth the price of admission for who you go to school with alone.
But, aside from that, the question presumes unlimited funds to go to school. For those without funds to go to school, most elite schools pick up the vast majority of the tab so long as those financially disadvantaged kids can make it in. This makes it a double-win.
The purpose of the big name school for undergrad is the contacts. Because either these people have money, or have skills in a greater degree than that of your state school counterparts (on an average, there are brains from state schools too). If your a brain, you can impress the people who will have money, if you've got money, you can shop for underfunded brains. And in some cases the students are also looking to get their MrS, of which its nice to snag someone of funds, all things being equal.
Contacts can make a whole world of difference.
A lot of states have terrific public universities. Just to name a few: California, Texas, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Maryland, and a few others have top public schools that are exceptionally good. The most important thing though is to have a focus on your career goals from early on. Set a goal from early on, and work on it. Don't wander around lecture halls and departments until your the end of junior year to find a major that fits you and then pick some lib arts major like political science or history. You'll end up with a lousy career. Think of a career path you like, think about subjects that you like, and think about how being in college can help you get there.
As other people have noted, people attending top schools may be more successful financially and professionally, but they also tend to be smart, hardworking, and come from affluent backgrounds. Those qualities are probably more important predictors of success than the education itself. The article mentions a Princeton economist who found that kids who were admitted to elite schools, but who turned them down to to attend other institutions, did about as well as those actually attending.
That being said, don't discount the importance of the name. A prof once told me "the name will help you get in the door for the interview, but once you're inside, it's all about you". He meant to emphasize that it's ultimately about the person, not the institution. True, but if you can't solve the immediate problem of getting that interview, your qualifications don't really matter, and in a lot of fields its difficult to even get an interview. Simply being able to get into a good school implies that you have a lot of the qualities- motivation, work ethic, intelligence- that people want. They're more likely to read your application carefully and call you. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the way it is. The name opens doors.
Personally, I think good schools really are worth it; the top institutions really are different. But keep in mind that the "best" school according to U.S. News and World Report is not necessarily the "best" school for you. Different schools have different cultures and you might find yourself fitting in perfectly at one, and miserable at the other. Maybe you prefer a school where people are passing out drunk and vomiting in the halls, or maybe you want a school where people hang out in the halls arguing about programming languages. Maybe you want a school with an amazing English program, maybe you want one with an amazing philosophy program. Maybe you want to go to a huge school in New York City, maybe you want to go to a small college in a college town. It's more important to go to the school that's best for you, than the one that's ranked #1 this year.
But the most important thing to keep in mind is this: you can get a good education anywhere, if you work hard, and a lousy education anywhere, if you don't.
The Harvard Longitudinal Study of Adult Development studied groups of men since the 1940s. The only correlation the study could find with anything was personal relationships.
http://adultdev.bwh.harvard.edu/research-SAD.html
Men with good relationships in childhood and young adulthood did better in almost every facet of their lives than did those with poor relationships: income, social status, marital status, health, etc. etc.
There are also lots of studies that show that, once employees meet the minimum qualifications and are hired, their performance has nothing to do with where they graduated, their marks, their IQ or any additional degrees they have. The big thing is their interpersonal relationships.
Of course, this is Slashdot, populated with geeks and nerds, so I don't expect that most of those reading this will believe it; sigh.
A coworker of mine earns $10k/year more with his MIT MSEE than anyone else in the department with an MSEE. I say emphatically yes.
How much per year does he pay on his MIT MSEE loans? Is it worth the cost after taxes?
What if you go to some famous school, but all the good jobs are reserved for the "insiders" who have been going there for generations? Outside of this crowd, other employers may feel intimidated by your background and not want to hire you. Not all employers want a super-smart employee. Or if they do hire you, they may set you up for failure, because the boss wants to laugh about firing someone who went to a prestigious school.
I went to a prestigious school, where everything people said had many layers of meaning, and everything was an advanced mind game. It took me a long time to trust simpler people who really mean what they say; people couldn't understand why I was so "paranoid". Well, I was in an environment where you had to be.
At Georgia Tech, the core classes of Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, and some others were taught in auditoriums with over 200 people in them. There was no opportunity to ask questions during lecture - it just would not be practical or fair. Consequently lectures were about as useful as watching the MIT free course ware you can now watch online for free. You went to lecture 3 days a week, and then went to a session 2 days a week with a teacher assistant, who was a graduate student doing this as a requirement for their own course work. They might be interested in doing it, or they might not. They might speak English well, or they might not. This is where the bulk of actual teaching went on though.
After about 2 years as a traditional student at GT, I failed out, and spent the rest of my time as a non-traditional student at 6 other colleges and universities while working and completing my degree.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Oh, I believe it, and it's consistent with the anecdotes I know about. Sucks for the average nerd like me, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Dilbert RSS feed
So you'd go with a person who only has experience of one company over someone who has been at three or more?
I compared my wife's school (a Liberal Arts School in Western Mass) with my own (Pac 10 school in Puget Sound). The only thing the schools shared were the school colors. The difference is really the people you go to school with. I went to classes (with hundreds of students) lectured by Nobel Laureates, but in fact got the bulk of teaching by the TA's. My classmates were good people, looking for a professional career, but nothing spectacular. My wife, on the other hand, had no class bigger than 100. There were a lot of really bright people. It's really unnerving sometimes watching "The Daily Show" and my wife casually mention that the guest lived across the hall in the freshman dorm. I guess, if my kids have the brain and drive to make it at a school like that, I would definitely scrape together the money.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
It's worth going to an elite college because elite colleges give better grades for the same work. As a student your goal is to get the best grades possible to get into the best graduate school.
Full tuition and fees may be $50K per year at some places, and the true cost to the university (per student per year) may be higher, but what's the true cost to the student?
The elite colleges and universities have need-blind admissions and financial aid that is entirely driven by a family's resources. That means the rich families who can easily afford that $50K don't mind the cost, and the families that can't, don't suffer it. Furthermore, the best school of those schools have been implementing no debt policies, where all the financial aid is in grants (instead of loans), so having debt after graduation isn't even an issue.
It's just dishonest to tell kids "Don't bother with Princeton, you can't afford it" when the reality is: for the elite colleges, if you can get in, they'll help you with the cost.
It's not what you know, it's who you know. Above a certain academic standard, that's your difference.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
First of all, when I went, it was about 1000 GBP a year in tuition, and maybe another 2K for living expenses. Terms were 3x 8weeks, very brief compared to others. I studied engineering, economics and management. Now I work in finance, having started a firm a couple of years ago.
Benefits:
- The main benefit of going to Oxford seems to be that everyone thinks I'm smarter than I actually am. I'm sure if I'd paid to go to Harvard, it would be much the same. That opens doors in every industry you can imagine, even ones that don't require smart people, like finance.
- Certain jobs in the financial sector have a hugely disproportionate number of Oxbridge grads. If you don't have a degree from a top uni, they can find someone who does. (It won't help you do the job however)
- If you hadn't gone to what the British call "Public School" (and the rest of the world calls "Private School"), Oxbridge is a great place to instill you with an overinflated ego, a sense of entitlement, and the attendant confidence in oneself that comes with these. You'll need it for bluffing the interviewers.
- You will run into some people whom you respect intellectually, and academically. I hired the only guy I've ever called a genius (and actually met!) for my firm. However, if you think contacts are the way to go, I'd suggest you won't meet enough of the truly bright, creative types, and too many of the impostors.
Drawbacks/Non-benefits:
- You're not really learning anything that can't be found in a book somewhere. So any college, at any price, will be able to give you the same reading list. If you think tutorials set Oxbridge apart from the rest, maybe you have a point. But you can get the same arguments from the same guy, in his book, instead of making him shout it at you.
- You feel like you HAVE to at least give finance/consulting/legal a chance. Everyone else is doing it, so maybe if you follow the sheep, you can be ahead of everyone. I have a mate who calls it "Academic Momentum". You just do what everyone else who is a high achiever is doing, and so you end up designing derivatives instead of medicines/rockets/F1 cars/other cool stuff.
- The more decorated an academic is, the less capable he is as a teacher. I found the best teachers were the grad students who'd recently wondered the same things as me about why XYZ was the way it was. Top profs have stuff so well ingrained, they can't fathom how someone can't fathom how a transistor works.
- As mentioned, contacts aren't that useful for your future life. People won't let you leech off them. Also, the "hub" contacts, those special people who really do know everyone useful, they already have their networks established by the time they get to uni. You're unlikely to pick up a lordship while in uni, so don't spend too much time trying to meet these guys. If you do happen to be mates with them though, it's not a bad thing, and they're not bad guys.
- Stuff you learn at uni isn't useful for work. It really isn't. I remember starting to program when I was on my first job, thinking "why the heck do I not see anything from that C++ module?". (Answer: you needed to know how derivatives work. And it was VB!)
- I'd also like to take this opportunity to warn people away from doing an MBA. You won't learn how to run a business without running a business. You won't even learn how finance works. You'll be expensive to hire, and in debt. The only benefit is an MBA says "I'm so friggin hungry for this M&A job, I've got this huge debt that I need to pay. Please make me work 100hr weeks."
I plan on majoring in Unreal Estate.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I don't know what your internships were in, but I was making $2500-$3500 a month with free housing. Not spectacular compared to a real job, but enough to fully fund a Roth IRA and still cover beer money for the following school year.
The original story, in Scientific American, agrees with you, but also sites research that tracks "equivalent students" entering college (based on SAT scores, etc) and comes to a similar but slightly different conclusion.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
As someone who moved around quite a bit as a kid, and consequently has a much smaller social network than someone who's stayed in one place, I wonder if I can sue my parents for lowering my potential income. Hmmmm..... (I jest, of course)
SSC
As Walter Benn Michaels puts it in "The Trouble with Diversity," universities are where the rich send their children, in order to "launder their privilege into qualifications." What a great phrase!
The USA claims to be a free and open society, where anyone can, through natural talent and hard work, rise to a higher class, and become wealthy and influential. But of course that's a lie. Social classes exist here just as they do in all countries, and the rich upper classes will always remain dominant, the poor you will always have with you, and the middle class will always be insecure and will strive to move into the upper class. It's not different here, it's just that we've been sold on the myth of equal opportunity.
Because of this lie, the rich have to hide their inherited advantages, and must show evidence that they actually have talents and are hard-working. Middle-class workers have to be kept asleep, lest they realize that the people who own the corporation do so through wealth, and not through merit. Hence the corporate owners send their kids to Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Stanford, to mask that inherited privilege with the trappings of actual skill and effort.
I've walked through the campus at Princeton, and the undergraduates there all appeared to float through space, as if life had never presented them with any obstacles, as if anything was possible, as if the future held great delights. They weren't snobbish. They were very nice people, but they truly knew that they were masters of their universe.
So how does this relate to the NY times article in question? Why do private-university graduates have higher salaries than state-university graduates? Simply because they are rich and connected *BEFORE* they enter the hallowed halls. That wealth and advantage are there after they graduate, and helps them land great jobs. They would probably land those jobs if they didn't attend those schools, but then the resentful middle-class workers would smell a rat.
In other words, the school you attend makes no difference. What matters is what class you were born into.
I don't mean to be rude, but isn't moving around an opportunity to meet lots of people, and thus develop your relationship skills?
And the "best" schools aren't necessarily the most expensive schools. That is another important distinction to make.
A: "the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution"
("may be more important, in the long run, than")
B: "how prominently and proudly that institution's name is being displayed on the back windows of cars in the nation's wealthiest enclaves"
I would suggest that there is a correlation between the two. Furthermore everything isn't about expected future income - when you have a major choice before you it is probably better to think about what kind of person you will become, memories you will acquire, experiences; what social connections you will make, etc. That said, perhaps B isn't representing the best measure to go by but I would certainly recommend people to look at rankings when they make this choice. Preferably as domain specific as possible - an institution that is good with one subject may not be so good with another.
There are many factors at work here. The various studies all have flaws as there are many interrelated variables and they are difficult to separate out. There is a complex choice here, and it is never as simple as these studies or stories make it out to be. Some things that are typically omitted:
1) If your undergraduate degree is the last degree you are going to get, the importance of that institution is elevated somewhat.
2) If you plan to get an advanced degree, one main goal of undergraduate education is to increase the likeliehood that you will get into a top graduate program and do well there.
2b) Top graduate programs in science and engineering are much more likely to take strong students from research universities, particularly those undergraduates who already took some graduate-level courses or had specific productive experience with undergraduate research.
Expounding a bit:
1) For careers in finance or management, many strong firms only consider students from very strong universities. If that is your career path, that could be an important criterion. Similarly, if your only degree will be undergraduate in some other field where generally the expectation is just an undergraduate degree, that choice of institution of course matters more. In terms of studies that look at average salary, this effect can dominate others as these are often high-paying fields with great variance in salary.
2) In general, I recommend that good students go to the "best" place that they get into. That is, the most academically rigorous usually works well. Overdoing it can be a problem, if they go to a place where the expectations are simply to high and they struggle and fail. But most commonly, the advantage of going to a strong place is that the other students are also strong, and the professors can then teach at a reasonable level for their audience. That is, often the other students are the limiting factor to the depth of a course's coverage and so you want to be at the best place you can be and still succeed. That is a good route to the preparation needed for doctoral-level courses.
2b) I've had to serve on various doctoral admissions committees, and students from big research universities are much more known quantities. Professors at these institutions have more experience with students continuing on to graduate school (and seeing their own students and other graduate students in their departments) and the students have a pretty good idea of what they are getting into. There have been too many students from small liberal arts colleges, whose letters of recommendation said "this is the best student I've seen in years" who took all the available courses there and excelled grade-wise, but who struggled and turned out to be poorly prepared or just overwhelmed by doctoral level work, or simply didn't really realize what they were getting into. So occassionally there are students from such backgrounds who do OK, but it isn't common and I can't recommend it as a good route to a strong graduate program. It may be the case that their smaller college instructors there are more involved in their teaching, classes are smaller, facilities are better, and they may in fact actually learn more at their institution and be happier there, but that doesn't really carry much weight for eventual graduate study.
FWIW, I went to an elite US research university for my undergraduate, and went to a top US research university for my PhD. I have taught or held research appointments post-Ph.D. in a wide range of institutions, from one of the weaker Ivy League institutions to top tier public research universities to mid-tier public research universities and I have a strong record of research funding as a professor judged primarily on research. People from many backgrounds ask for my advice about university choices in science and engineering as there is a culture of excessive obsession about "the right institution" for their choice.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
I went to Pinche Cabron Medical School in Guadalajara and I'm now doing brain surgeries out of the back of my van in a mall in Topeka.
And making quite a nice living too, thank you.
Damn ObamaCare!
I did Applied Math (minor in Statistics) at Stanford and can say with absolute certainty that there's probably a 50-50 chance it could go either way.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And the "best" schools aren't necessarily the most expensive schools. That is another important distinction to make.
Quite true. In fact, Ivy League schools can be nearly free if you're not rich and are willing to negotiate with the financial aid office.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
And no school - of any sort - will make you smarter.
In the late '90s I was making plans to go back to school for my Masters, and this was very much an issue I looked at.
I looked at the possibility of going to a relatively unknown school where i could quietly do something really interesting. I also looked at some Big Name schools. I ended up going to a Big Name (University of Toronto), who had more funding. I was poor enough that I had no choice: I took the money and ran, and ended up doing some really interesting stuff.
Since a graduate degree is so much more what you put in to it, doing your own research, do people feel names are as important for grad students?
...laura
big name places gather talent from around the world, that is why they have big names: research.
basic education is the same shit anywhere: use the same books, same time/course and so on...
I wish they did more longitudinal studies! They tell the most. Especially, they can identify irrelevant variables and prejudices.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
A book I wrote: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html
"Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease"
From there:
The fundamental issue considered in this essay is how an emerging post-scarcity society affects the mythology by which Princeton University defines its "brand", both as an educational institution and as an alumni community. ...
Consider a prospective Princeton student evaluating whether an elite education at Princeton is a good investment of four years of her or his youth -- as well as a the direct expenses and indirect opportunity cost of lost wages. How should such a person evaluate the Princeton University "brand" these days, given, say, Donald Rumsfeld '54 as a PU poster boy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_child
"Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html
And also, how should a bright student interested in a future of independent intellectual effort see a PU investment in relation to perhaps a future PhD and professorship if they stay on the academic track all the way? Is it worth it? Should they really sacrifice, say, creating their own personalized "brand" on their own in the internet age from day one, as opposed to trying to build a life under the Princeton "brand" and so perhaps follow in Donald Rumsfeld's footsteps?
Here is an analogous example of someone choosing to pass up working at Apple to continue developing their own personal brand:
"Why I passed up the chance to work at Apple"
http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/000809.html
A visitor comment from that web site:
Apple has nothing on Cameron Moll. Sure, Apple is a wonderful brand. But where Apple is in the business of design, Cameron strikes me as one in the business of the art of design, and that may appear to be a subtle difference at first glance. But it isn't. ... You have built a brand for and of yourself, and I personally admire your accomplishment. I believe you describe an important self-discovery: you value the Cameron Moll brand more than you value the mighty Apple brand.
By coincidence (if such really exist? :-), such a prospective student need look no further that the current (May 14, 2008) issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (Cover story: "The new rules of financial aid"):
http://www.princeton.edu/paw/archive_new/PAW07-08/13-0514/table_of_contents.html
to understand how the "Princeton University" brand may need to be rethought in a collaborative GNU/Linux & Wikipedia internet age. Is it still advisable to align oneself with the historic Princeton University brand in an emerging post-scarcity society? Or, to be fair, to align one's personal brand with how that historic PU brand is now seen by the public, acknowledging there is always a lot going on at Princeton in different directions? I'd also suggest there are more alumni than just me who have stopped buying PU-related automobile window stickers (see below for more on that).
That choice of self-branding versus main-stream branding in the internet age is related to the idea of "post-scarcity". I will define that better later, but for now, let's just imagine a future where beer everywhere in t
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I went to two years community college before a state university and I had the best math professor Ive ever had at the community college. He was better than any of my current ones and now Im in grad school at a tier 1 research university actually doing research. Point is it doesn't matter where you go as long as you are interested in what you are doing. There are some differences in math departments around the world, such as CU Denver is all about computational math, UH Houston is all about a very strong abstract math foundation with specialties in wavelets/signal processing or financial math or complex geometry. My undergrad university was MSU Montana and they were all about the applied math, i.e. math used for engineering purposes. Its better to find a department that has similar interests to yours than just shoot for somewhere like Princeton only because of the prestige.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
It's a differentiator, sure... but it's bupkis compared to practical, hands-on experience, and a candidate who rides on his or her sheepskin is less valuable than one who has none but shows initiative, curiosity, and drive.
Absolutely true but in some professions also absolutely irrelevant. Some professions simply will not hire you without the sheepskin. Medicine, finance, accounting, some branches of engineering, and quite a few more simply will not hire you unless you have the right set of certifications. I'm certified as an accountant myself. The certification itself doesn't make me a better or more knowledgeable accountant but without it I could not get hired or promoted to anything more than an entry level bookkeeper. It doesn't make a microscopic bit of difference how much I know without that certification because (almost) no company is going to take the chance on hiring me.
Doesn't mean we can't improve. Social skills are a learned thing, I don't think they come naturally. Perhaps a little easier for some folks, but it can be done. There's always hope! I'm walking proof.
I highly recommend Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/1439167346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292807944&sr=8-1
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
That's certainly a conclusion you can come to, but that also means it's difficult to create deep, lasting relationships with anyone but family. Sort of a quality vs. quantity thing.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
If you're looking at a career that requires graduate school (scientist), ungraduate schools don't matter as much as a good grad program. My wife went to a state school, got good grades and test scores and was accepted to Stanford and Harvard for grad school. When she completed her PhD, postdoc positions cared about the quality of the grad school. When she applied for facuilty positions, nobody asked about undergrad but wanted to know where she got her PhD and where she did her postdoc work.
First of all, you're going to be racking up the student loans. The investment in a good school for just 4 years is 200-250k in tuition for the lowest ranked 'top universities', think more near to 1M if you want Harvard or others in the Ivy League. If you need to get housing, it's an additional 50-100k+ for on-campus housing or if you can find something among the locals 25k+. You'll be making 18k/year at the local McD to cover your food and fuel expenses during this period. You'll have lots of stress trying to balance it all. In the mean time you're 'investment' is going to accrue interest at ~2% a year (or roughly $5-20k/year).
Then you're going to have to find an entry-level job, before you even make enough money to start paying off the balance (not the interest) you're another 5 years further. That's 9-10 years of your life you're under water (debt wise) in which you won't even be able to save enough to do anything.
If you go to a local community college you'll get the same paper, less debt and you'll have less stress. You'll be able to buy a house after 2 years working and you're debt should be paid off ~2-3 years after that. Plus, you won't be too highly qualified (or feel underpaid) for that job.
And that's if you're lucky and get that job in the industry. A bunch of college kids feel inadequately educated and end up working at the local pizza shop anyway. I was able to work in the IT industry right out of high school (albeit at a lower entry-level income) and have been able to work up to mid-level in the time it would've taken me to finish a University education. I now have over a decade of experience in the industry which makes me a good candidate for just about any job I interview for. I can afford a house, cars, a family and have absolutely no debt.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Next question?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
"Emphatically saying yes" really should involve all the other MSEE's working *for* your MIT friend, not merely him being their peer. $10K really isn't that huge of a break, or at least I hope it isn't.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Education is a treasure to be cherished, not a trophy to be flaunted.
Perhaps these are just words to comfort people struggling in a competitive environment.
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
I did statistics and data engineering at a completely different university and got to the same conclusion, so I guess education matters, not the school.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm asking seriously here.
A recent study was conducted around here. Note: Universities are very, very cheap here. Imagine spending bout 700 bucks a year on tuition instead of 7000+.
The study came to the conclusion that you make more money if you do not go to an university but instead join the workforce. You can come out on top if you only go for your bacc degree and forgo the master's, but only if you can pull it off in minimum time, and in a field that is in demand (the combination pretty much does not exist).
The pay difference is, considering that you lose about 5 years of earning money (provided you finish in minimum time, 8 years is more sensible), not setting off the time difference. People get promoted and earn more money while university graduates are entering "fresh" and usually at lower pay than someone with 8+ years experience. They climb the financial ladder faster, but they just can't catch up 'til retirement.
It is of course different with the US, where taxes are way lower, but there's also the student loan burden weighing you down. So I wonder, has anyone ever bothered to actually look into it? Does it pay to earn a degree, financially?
We needn't discuss whether it pays on the satisfaction level, of course it is more satisfying to do a job that you like because you chose to study the relevant field so you get it. When people chose their career because they wanted to be a $profession all their life, they don't care for money. The average actor or dancer never gets "famous" enough to make a killing. Most are actually quite struggling, but still doing what they love to do.
It's purely financial here: Does it pay?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Any elite school is to some degree in the business of exchanging additional money for prestige. The Ivy League especially. If you plan to enter elite level law and/or finance, it's pretty much a given that you need to exit school with an Ivy dip (esp. if no family connections).
If you don't aspire to the commanding heights of Wall Street, the Loop, D.C. or academia, the added value is slim.
Luke, help me take this mask off
"worth it" would imply to me some kind of payoff period. Even if all your jobs until you die pay 30% over what you would have received with a lesser education seems like a pretty bad payoff period if the tuition is twice what it is elsewhere. The fact that there's more variance between salaries than tuition at an institution isn't a good sign either.
If you're applying at a job where they're convinced the name means something, then yes, it can matter. However, you could also be branded an elitist snob at other places where the name might be associated with that. The knife cuts both ways.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
A more important questions is: why is the cost of a public university, for which every homeowner pays thousands of dollars a year, still half the cost of a private institution which receives no public funding.
I recall less than 20 years ago going to a stated funded public university with no financial aid, and paying about $1,200 per semester including books. Now, 20 years, later, inflation having slightly less than doubled, my stepson is going to a public university that wants him to pay about $9,000 per semester.
Incomes and Real Estate taxes have risen, and the percentage that we are taxed for eduction has gone up, yet somehow, the cost of going to a public school has still gone up by more than 7 times. Obviously someone is doing a very poor job with our money and they need to be removed from office.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
What in hell's name were you interning in? $3k plus housing a month, assuming after-tax, is something like $60k a year. That's well north of what I made as a medical resident, and I'm pretty sure you weren't doing nights and weekends.
I went to a reunion at a very elite college and they had the results of a survey sent out to the alumn.
One answer to the question, "Do you think 's name helped you?" was:
"Yes, it opened many doors... and legs"
Apologies for the typographical error and I am sorry that this meant you were completely unable to understand what I was trying to say. I had originally written "based on a student's income" but that of course would have been wrong too and in the process of rearranging it I left in the apostrophe. I had clearly better watch it otherwise soon I might be mis-spelling words like colour, centre and tyre as well.
You provide a link to the study, but not to any results supporting your claim. The only results I found with a bit of searching were in an Atlantic Monthly article -- and those indicated that personal relationships were most important, but only among the Harvard men studied, not the "Glueck men", for whom the most important predictor was industriousness in childhood. Further, there were other factors as well, for both groups.
Well, you failed to do all the fun math associated with it. Even without, you're still right.
He has a lot to consider, that doesn't come from the universities recruiter, high school guidance counselor, or his parents that went to the school that they want him to go to.
As a side note, I'll be using "he" as a theoretical person, since neither the journalist nor the submitter were actually asking the question.
1) Does his career choice require a degree? If he is going to be a doctor or a lawyer, sure, it's required. For most other things, it's not. Either there's non-degree tech school, such as for nursing, law enforcement, auto/aviation mechanic, or a million other trades.
2) Does he have some self esteem issue that would really be helped by a degree? (hint: no degree can change who you are)
3) Does he have an abundance of time or money to waste on getting the degree. This is where most of the people with degrees stand up and scream, and a few say "you know, he's right".
Most employers don't care if you have a degree, as long as you can do the job. A few give pay incentives to those with degrees, but it's usually very low (as in a 1% to 5% increase on base salary).
I've personally known.....
A gentleman with a masters in political science. He did 2nd level tech support for a small Internet company.
An english major who struggled through various low pay jobs, and finally worked her way up the ranks with a company, to work in accounting, and went to a tech school to get the employer required degree.
A holder of a bachelors in psychology, who shuffled papers for Verizon.
And finally. A gentleman with a doctorate in something (can't remember, doesn't matter), who worked with the previously mentioned individual. As it later was discovered, his doctorate was from a papermill university. Since he kept up with his workload, they kept him on, and didn't even lower his base salary to that which he should have been at.
The list could be a lot longer, but it really doesn't matter. I do personally know quite a few people with masters and doctorates, who did very well for themselves. The important part to mention is that they didn't do very well because of the piece of paper, nor from spending 4 to 8 years in school. They did well because they learned their job, and excelled. No one that I know of was ever handed a job on a silver platter, unless daddy was a millionaire (or better). When I've been involved in hiring, even it's to just research the individual's qualifications (I'm good at digging up dirt on people), a degree has never been much more than "oh that's nice.". That leads back to your statement quite nicely. 50/50.
I liked how the story mentioned the sticker in the back window. Anyone can buy those stickers. You can buy the license plate frame, window sticker, key chain, and even degrees. You too can get all the supplies necessary to be from the university of your choice. The prices range from about $200 to $10,000, and you never have to do any academic work other than keying in your credit card number on their web site.
Businesses tend to be lazy about verifying information. Verifying references is barely done any more. Verifying university credentials, even less. We'll use one of the people I know as an example. He'd been working various jobs anywhere from middle management to C-level for many years. Only one employer attempted to verify his credentials. It was only then that he found out, the school had changed hands no less than 3 times since his graduation. The school wasn't even at the same location. He spent several days making phone calls trying to find anyone who could confirm that he went there, only to get answers from "I don't know" to "We don't have any records that old, sorr
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Where are my mod points.... Right now even elite colleges are finding it hard to get all the full-tuition students they need. My daughter enrolled at a top school this year which gave us a no-strings-attached discount that dwarfed the cobbled-together combination of (grade-contingent) scholarships, loans, and grants that her other options offered. Now she's getting a household-name education, plus perks like great professors and a single room. Of course she's doing all the work and taking full advantage of everything on offer there. Now's the time to go a little contrarian in your educational choices.
I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
I hail from Minneapolis. When I applied to schools, I didn't look at anything inside of Minnesota. I liked the UC system because they recognize the International Baccalaureate program (similar to AP) and the cost, even as an out of state student, was significantly lower than a private school -- GWU was an alternative and about double the cost of the degree which I just achieved from UC Santa Barbara. I sincerely believe we have the best of both worlds here. Most of my professors achieved their doctorates at notable universities such as Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, etc., which is to be expected for a graduate degree but also take pride in conveying their knowledge to us weak-minded students. Major and prestigious universities, the professors priorities are usually donated to the advancement of their careers and their respective fields. Small colleges can cater to the opposite extreme and, while creating great rapport with the students, they fall short of technical expertise. I believe a middle ground exists at many universities. What I found at UCSB wasn't always the best teaching or cutting edge research in every field, but a healthy taste of both. When I finished up my degree a few weeks ago, I felt very happy with the bond I had created with my school. I paid about $32,000 a year to go here and I believe it was worth every dime, but some might not agree with me. After all, what makes for a good fit is subjective to the student and their needs, but that's another story. The bottom line is that a connection cannot be drawn between prestige, cost, and the perceived quality of a degree.
I hate articles like this because they reduce higher education to a single metric: money. If your primary or only concern is making as much money as possible, the first thing you need to look at isn't which school you want to attend, it's your intended major. And if that major isn't business or finance, you're already off course. There are some exceptional cases where other majors lead to riches, but they are just that: exceptions. Now that that's settled, does it matter where you get your MBA? Yes, it does, not because of the quality of the education but because of the connections you'll make there. A degree from an elite university will more than pay for itself in that respect.
For anything else -- having established that making as much money as possible is not your primary goal -- you need to decide what is most important to you. Once you have a reasonably clear picture of where you want to end up in life, you'll actually have a rational basis for choosing a college to attend. That may or may not be an elite university.
But if it's just money you're after, you're going into finance, and you are interested in the school that gives you the greatest chance of being hired by Goldman Sachs.
If that's actually what you really want, anyway.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Hardly a phenomena unique to the University of Illinois: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_clout_scandal
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
IE they lived up to the old adage "A university is what a college becomes when it stops caring about its students." (Or my modification of that other saying "My university is a research institute that badly runs an undergrad school on the side.")
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Since I went to what I guess is supposed to be an elite school. (I guess it depends what you call "elite" since mine was supposedly one of the best 100 schools in the world.) I blame them for driving me crazy in my early 20's. (Admittedly undiagnosed but you didn't need to be a psychiatrist to realize I was literally mentally ill.) They weren't into that whole "Helping their students" thing so this went on for years even after I graduated.(They basically blew me off when I tried to use their help services so that was pretty much worthless.) That kind of experience I wouldn't wish on anybody, even my worst enemy.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
My Princeton degree has worked for me and against me. I came out in 1992 with a certificate to teach high school history (through a highly unusual teaching program Princeton offers that more or less eschews normal pedagogy courses in favor of practical experience). The one interview I managed to get with a school system (out of hundreds of applications) started with the following question: "Given your educational background, how do you expect to lower your expectations to the level required of a public school teacher?" Needless to say, I didn't get the job.
Since then, my undergrad degree has played a significant role in getting me two law jobs (including the one I have now). In both instances, the hiring partner also had an Ivy League degree (either undergrad or law) and it was clear that I got my foot in the door because of their respect for the school, even though my degree had absolutely no direct relevance to the job. I had to close the deal once I got the interviews but, after getting the jobs and working with those people for many years, it is clear that they hold a certain class of school in very high regard and pre-judge job applicants accordingly.
Topgrading ... those schools pick the successful students to go there as there are usually many more applicants than open spots. The same way that 'class A' high school sports teams generally whip 'class C' school sports teams. Larger draw and the ability to select the top end of the bell-curve at the start. It doesn't _really_ matter what the school teaches them after that (except for technical jobs like Engineering).
being on the hiring side of things, I've seen where some schools I'm willing to take more graduates from than others based on work experience.
It really depends on what you want to major in. Some schools can teach you something better than others but if you're just going to be your own boss then there is no purpose to attend Harvard instead of a community college. Yeah, if your plan backfires then it would help to have a name to back you up, especially since you FAILED. However, if you plan on getting a chem engineering degree then you might want to graduate from Stanford or something. As far as reality is concerned, you just need to pay for college for 3-4 years and if you get accepted for grad school then you'll be making money and will easily be able to pay off your debt so long as you're not an idiot. But I think getting into grad school is proof enough that you're not entirely an idiot right?....right?
I think this depends on what field and what state you live in. Chem majors can easily make that amount over summer as an intern but juggling an internship and school sounds rather stressful, especially if you don't live near either school or the organization/company.
That cliché is getting a little tired. Can it have a holiday?
So actually correlation does imply causation. Just not the one that's visible at first glance.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It seems, does it?
Believe it or not there are ways of working it out. But they're a bit more complicated than comparing 1.3 to 2.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Having gone to an elitest college I not enjoying it at all, I can say the best thing about it is the "old boys" business club.
I went to an expensive well ranked private school. I can count the number of things I learned there on one hand. But thats really the same at any school. Everything I learned came from internships, something I wouldn't have had as easy access to without the name of my school behind me.
Degrees from the best schools are a built-in form of elitism in our education system. The unwashed masses can't practically afford to go regardless of how smart you are. Those with money can get it and get the elite stamp of approval, which opens up all kinds of doors once they do get out into the workforce.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Oh, I'm not whining about it - I'm an alumnus of an establishment that has educated kings, and it's served me well in terms of networking and schmoozing jobs with the Old Boys.
But then again, I am actually competent. The other side is that there are an awful lot of Ivy League Chief $FOO Officers out there who couldn't find their own backside with two hands and a map. Their titles and connections can bring a short term marketing benefit, but sooner or later they'll bubble up to a position where they do real damage - either a spectacular gaffe, or a creeping realisation in your business partners that you're run by morons.
Still, when all your competitors are run by Old Money Harvard MBA types, what are you going to do? Have your company represented by a bunch of smelly peasants? Competence is just another word for nouveau riche.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"Researchers say that alumni of the most selective colleges earn, on average, 40 percent more a year than those who graduated from the least selective public universities"
But that does not necessarily mean that the university caused that increase in earnings.
Presumably, only the more capable people can get into the top universities. Presumably the most capable people will on average earn more anyway.
http://xkcd.com/552/
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
It seems the English classes are lacking there. What is it that you don't/didn't enjoy? Saying that or going to the school?
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Height?
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
The point isn't which university / college you should choose based on what the quality of the program they offer, but whether it's worth the costs.
You say you had the 'elite route', and I hope for you that if you had to take a huge debt to make it through college/grad school, you can afford to pay it back. But what if you didn't have the job(s) you had after you graduated, simply because there aren't that many jobs for people with your skillset/knowledge? Not everyone becomes a researcher (most people don't).
One should really wonder whether it's worth it to take a debt of $100,000+ to visit an Ivy League college/gradschool, as there's no guarantee you will land a job to pay it back.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Several courses on dutch universities have 'numerus fixus', which means only a limited number of students are accepted, as the universities can't accept more due to the facilities and the nature of the courses. This doesn't make them 'elite', as the selection isn't really a selection, but a lottery. In other words, it's not 'hard' to get into, you just have to have luck. It's sad it's this way, really, but on the other hand, it's fair.
We have 1 elite university in the netherlands: Nijenrode University, but compared to Harvard and Princeton, it's very small scale and relatively less expensive.
You as a law student in Amsterdam should know there IS small elitism among law graduates in the netherlands: Leiden University and Utrecht University law students are considered 'higher educated', by many people, which is of course prejudice bullsh*t, but you know how people are. It's however not the same as with the USA system, as you could have applied to study law in Leiden as well, without any extra effort.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
What in hell's name were you interning in? $3k plus housing a month, assuming after-tax, is something like $60k a year. That's well north of what I made as a medical resident, and I'm pretty sure you weren't doing nights and weekends.
These amounts are typical for internships at Bender's University for Male Hookers. The downside is that it does require working nights and weekends.
"You have liberated me from thought."
...the fact that you have a degree gets you the job interview. ...how you comport yourself in the interview gets you the position. ...at that moment, "the school you went to" vanishes as as an important fact in your work life, forever.
Certainly, there will be some occupations and fields for which the name of your school will get you that interview. Going to work for the State Dept with Georgetown on your resume, as opposed to West Podunk, you're far more likely to get past the first "cut" and get an interview.
Further, to have the connections to hear about the new opening, or to get the 'inside recommendation', and ultimately getting promoted once employed, much of that is going to be based on who you know - again, advantage to the expensive schools where you're mingling with the spawn of the hoi oligoi.
THOSE are the advantages of the expensive schools. For anyone who thinks you're actually going to learn more or get a "better" degree at an expensive school? Well, that's just hilarious.
-Styopa
$3k over a summer, yes, absolutely. But $3k plus housing a month? There sure weren't any deals like that around when I was a chem major 15 years ago.
Hear, hear.
Or, as one might (and I have, in a book) "Correlation may not be causality, but it's all we've got."
After all, how do you think inference and the scientific method work? Why do you think they work?
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
I have attended both private universities and state universities. I have to say that the in class competition is more fierce at good private universities. I never went to a third rate private university. Students joked about CW Post and Skidmore as being a place where rich parents sent their kids for four years.
I also took classes at Boston University. I remarked to someone that the cost of an education at BU was on par with MIT. They replied that if you can get into MIT, you are not going to go to BU. MIT also attracts far more research money than BU. Although, I have met someone who got a full scholarship at BU, while less money at MIT, so went to BU. About 1/3 of the cost of a university is covered by the tuition. Research and donations provide the rest. However, I don't know if most undergraduate students can benefit from research grants, even if that attracts more talented professors. I usually found that few great research professors make great teachers. Another professor pointed out that professors get tenure based on research, and teaching is not heavily weighted at most top ranked universities.
What most college graduates fail to understand is that you still have to work hard, network, and always continue learning.
You did that anyway, and were successful. You started at a pay range no college grad would consider, but you used it as a stepping stone. Very successfully.
You also got lucky. Without your contacts, if you were to lose your job, you'd be up a creek without a paddle. That's the danger of not having a degree - HR won't even shake your hand.
The flip side is that most college grads feel that they "deserve" a high salary to start, and that they should get all the perks of a comfy lifestyle. They're "done" learning and it's time to sit back and have The Man carry them through. This attitude sinks a lot of careers, and can find you on the cut list when the economy goes south. The easiest way to find a new job is to have one already; once you've been laid off, those of us who hire know that you're probably in the bottom half of the work force - and those aren't the people we want.
PS - If you're offended by my last statement, consider this. Are you good enough to start your own business and bring in (and complete) enough work to make a living? Regardless of your field or whether you want to run a business, if your answer to the above is no, then you're not in the top 5%.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Are those that go to the big elites more connected anyway, thus enabling them to obtain the higher paying jobs out of college?
Coming out of an Ivy can open a very powerful network. I council undergrads at my alma mater to not focus on grades, but networking, unless they're going to grad school. Corporate recruiting is a good way to get a big-salary job you don't really deserve, and that typically sets a floor for your career. If you're pulling in $80K to start instead of $40K, does an extra $150K in debt make that much difference? With this strategy, one can be debt-free in 5 years instead of 20 (assuming some self-control).
I chose to keep my soul instead, but if money and power is your goal, a top-tier school is a good investment.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I did Applied Math (minor in Statistics) at Stanford and can say with absolute certainty that there's probably a 50-50 chance it could go either way.
Indeed, it is without doubt that 50-50 chance is quite probable, although ultimately not very likely, to be exact representation of the empirical distribution that is based on completely artificial data we draw a large part (but not all) of the important conclusions from — not ignoring the fact, that the resulting quality of education can be viewed from both subjective and objective point of view, or mixture of thereof, treating both as equals or using a customized scale model, adjusting for personal background, field, individual personality or even requirements set by third parties — which certainly is not based solely on personal income within a specific month or year a certain period of time after finishing the college, university or other educational entity providing comparable education at the comparable education level, not excluding educational entities that provide low level of quality of the education, but otherwise provide the comparable level of education.
Which is not to say that I personally disagree with your professional or personal opinion that you have come to, even though I cannot agree with it in its entirety, since it doesn't fully represent the true specifics of the topic at hand, that requires much greater attention that the like of which it's clearly receiving, much like other topics discussed in similar fashion on this web site, which I have been a member of for quite some time, which, although irrelevant, does prove completely nothing, which is to say exactly the kind of analogy I would present to most of the posts here included (even if one would not count future useless posts or useless posts with score below average threshold set up by an average user).
In conclusion one can't help but wonder why this topic is considered News instead of Ask Slashdot.
That "Scarlet Letter" is a "crimson H," buddy. :)
Then you absolutely didn't do it right. My four years were filled with running student organizations myself, teaching a class, networking with professors over a game of raquetball (who subsequently made calls for me when I needed them made), building the closest relationships I have outside of my family and a couple childhood friends, and spending many hours every day learning from other students in my dorms and classes. And I did this at Big State U--that's right: personal attention from professors at Big State U.
Anyone who thinks college is about "sit in lecture, learn to code an OS, graduate" is missing out on tremendous opportunities there.
I'm actually trying to make a serious point here. A proper university teaches you to think, and how to find a way to do something about your thoughts. This gives you a huge career advantage over the people who go through the motions (and,especially,never learn to prioritise). If you are a senior academic or manager, rather than a sub-editor, and you spend significant time worrying over whether the full stop goes in or outside the bracket, you've possibly been overpromoted.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I had the same experience, I never really learned Calc at either a large public research school or the top tier tech school I attended but instead finally learned it from a part time faculty member at a community college who wasn't a math person but instead a practicing Engineer. Her examples helped bring it out of the dry abstract world of pure mathematics into the real world which finally made it click in my brain.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Particularly for science and engineering it's about access. People who went to MIT had access to facilities that those of us across the river could only dream about.
I agree with the majority of your post and applaud you for posting it. Colleges and guidance councilors would have one think that someone can't go anywhere without a degree, and that to be successful costs money. My experiences have taught me that is a bunch of BS, and the only people who really have to go to college to get ahead are mediocre students with more motivation skills. I'm not saying you can't learn things in college, but there are numerous examples of smart, motivated people that did just fine without it. I dropped out after one semester in college (too many dumb people went there, I got tired of teaching basic algebra to my roommates) and have a pretty darn good salary 30 years later. By taking night courses only in the things I needed to learn, I saved myself a lot of time, energy, and money.
My experience with those that state the loudest about college building a well rounded person are those whose college educations have largely been a waste of money. I don't know how many times I've run into someone in the computer field that has a degree in something else. Lady luck presenting opportunities seems to have more of an impact on one's life than does careful planning. Having the courage to take advantage of opportunities and not being risk adverse is probably more important than any formal college degree.
As also noted, until one establishes contacts, it can be difficult to get in the door. On the 'good news' side though, contacts are everywhere. I got my first break when I wrote some mailing list software for an astronomy club I was in, which just happened to have a manager of a programmer department as a member. A year later, I was working for him, my first foray into a programming job after being a computer operator for a few years. I haven't had to use a recruiter or hit the want ads for over 20 years now, and I haven't held any position more than 5 years. My last job came from a guy I had worked with that told me about the opening.
I'm not trying to brag, just to show that you don't have to go through HR. Which is really the only stumbling block when it comes to not having a degree.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
If this study isn't adjusted for cost of living, it's completely worthless. Almost all of the elite colleges are on the coasts, where the cost of living is SIGNIFICANTLY higher. Almost all of the large public universities are in mid-America and the South (Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, A&M, Georgia, Florida...), where the cost of living is very low. If you're not making 40% more in Boston than you would if you lived in San Antonio, you wouldn't even be able to pay your bills.
So people who are the best students that go to those elite colleges without financial aid make more money then those that are not. Why is this a surprise to anyone? People that start out smart and rich tend to remain that way.
For many professions (IT comes to mind) the University is much less important than your job performance, recommendations, etc after you get past your first job. However, for some professions a elite university is a must to simply get in the door. If you want to get an MBA and go into Management Consulting, you will have little chance at a top 5 or 10 consulting firm unless you attend an "elite" university for the simple reason that these firms only recruit at certain schools and getting in outside of the standard college recruiting cycle is extremely difficult. So again, it depends on what you want to do and what degree you want to get.
It's not whether or not someone took advantage of every possible educational opportunity at an elite school, but more likely a result of developing an using a large alumni network. I've encountered people from some of those schools and they tend to take care of their own (fellow alumni).
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
This is exactly right. For every "I dropped out of high school and look at me!" story, there's dozens more where the end result is pumping gas for a living.
Using outliers as a baseline for decision making is a really *exceptionally* bad idea.
I spent some time in the community college system when I was younger and trying to figure out what I wanted to be when I grew up, and a majority of my "formative" professors were there, as opposed to university. By formative I mean excellent to the point that they imbue with passion for whatever they are teaching. A lot of them were older people who used to teach in AA universities, who got sick of the size and politics. Some of them were old grizzled professionals in whatever field using teaching to supplement their retirement.* You get a better range of professors and life experience, and not just people who settled for the academic track. One professor there cemented my desire for a university education in psychology, only to have that dream crushed by mediocre professors once I got to university.
Not to say there wasn't bad ones too. It just seemed more diverse. You got more terrible ones, and more good ones than at a university.
*My favorite was a beginning level CS teacher who was basically involved in the invention of modern computing, both working with DARPA and at MIT, and later at IBM and making punch-card operated nuclear control systems. He was one of the worst teachers I've ever had, since it often seemed he didn't touch a computer since 1952, and thus had no clue whatsoever what was actually going on. It wasn't helped that he was very old, and hooked to an oxygen tank 90% of the time. I loved him, but hated the class he taught.
Or the cultural anthropologist who was basically a minor Indiana Jones, who was used to teaching at Oxford and Harvard, but was, in his own words "slumming it". Awesome class, he brought in authentic relics from digs he participated in, like actual sacrificial statues of Kali, and various Aztec sculptures ("if you look closely there, you can still see some staining from blood"). Sadly the community college ruined the course by retitled it from "Anth210: Intro to the Anthropology of Religion" to "Anth210: Magic, Witchcraft, and Healing", drawing in only "Wiccans", who argued with him every time he claimed such and such culture though witches were a malevolent force. Best final ever, though, he just wrote; "Mesoamerica?" on the board and said "you have two hours and 20 pieces of paper, fill them, front and back.". He hated the experience, and probably never walked next to community college again.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The only ones it helps is themselves because they can charge a higher tuition based on their brand equity. For Middle and Lower Class students, it's a terrific way to fleece them six figures for a degree they'll be paying for the rest of their lives and which won't help them one damn bit. It's another ingenious way to funnel money from lower echelons of the socio-economic ladder to the very, very wealthy who run the student loan companies. In fact, if it weren't for the sub-prime mortgage collapse, the big story right now would be the scandal about how student loan offices in universities have been taking kick-backs from loan companies to encourage students to maximize their debt by offering them false promises of guaranteed financial success after they graduate. Between the student loans, the usurious rates on the credit cards they hand out like candy on campus, and the outrageously inflated housing market the powers-that-be have guaranteed that everyone under 40 in this country who thought they could get an education to have a better life graduates as a debt-slave for life.
Sure, there might be a few lucky kids out there whose parents taught them about the real world of managing your finances who didn't fall for that stuff, and they're sure to jump in and blame everyone who didn't, saying "well nobody twisted their arm to do those things!" But nowhere in the United States in any school, at least in public schools, do they teach you how to invest and manage your money and, frankly, make money. That's not a subject that they will ever allow to be taught.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I disagree. If the degree does not change who you are, you have not achieved much at all. I was changed profoundly by studying pure math and learning and reading everything else I could get my hands on (not just math, but physics, cosmology, philosophy, medicine, biology, sociology, economy etc). By the time I was done with my undergrad degree, I would profoundly a new person, more self actualized and aware, looking at the world through new eyes.
Postgraduate degree had far lesser effect on me because it was too specialized.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
No irony here, Alanis. Just because I ignored the original AC's attempt to poison the well by suggesting that anyone who disagreed was a geek or a nerd doesn't constitute irony.
As for the nice guy with average skills, why shouldn't he keep his job? When layoffs come, he's going going to be in the category of "must keep", but he's not going to be top of the layoff list either.
>In other words you blame GT because you couldn't hack it there.
>That's why GT grads can demand more $$ in the workforce.
Not at all. Obviously Georgia Tech graduates are superior to others because they are smart enough to learn the material on their own.
I wasn't. I needed someone to teach me the material. I suspect most people go to school to be taught material. Georgia Tech is seemed to me to be a place where you went certification of the knowledge you acquired on your own.
I blame Georgia Tech for not actually teaching core material.
Now maybe this is by intent - maybe the idea is to weed out everyone who isn't smart enough to learn the core material on their own. But it sure makes me wonder what you're paying for to go to school there. Reputation, I guess.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Meh, there are research universities, and there are teaching universities. The name brands tend to be the former, so they can have their flashy press releases and stuff.
I think the name universities are probably nice in that you could end up starting a neat business with some of your classmates. I feel like I kinda squandered my Ivy League education by climbing the career ladder from the bottom rung. But OTOH, it's nice to have decent job security these days. It gives you some iota of extra leverage or choice, sort of like having a +1 negotiation modifier without needing to grind at any additional charisma skill.
That said, I never really flaunt it anywhere outside of my resume. The only window sticker I've ever placed on my college beater was for the "Borg Institute of Technology", and I only wear the T-shirts I got for free.
--
Regarding health care, preventative maintenance sounds much cheaper than emergency roadside assistance.
Right, you're describing the "Big H" approach - I respect it, I just don't have the finesse to really glue it together. But it's also real slippery whether those ops = $40,000 per year. How good ARE those contacts?
The rest of the time, Uni is about studying hard. I was middle of the pack B+ territory. We need jobs too.
But I was just barely bright enough to recognize that in 1994 computers really weren't "locked in" yet, so I went BS Business, which proved more durable as a content base. Say about 3 years from now when I get on the black ink side of the personal finance ledger, I want to revisit the idea of a Master's - a brand new Master's from 2014 will be worth far more than a "power track" Masters from 1998, just becaue the world context is so different.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"What college did you go to? It's not listed on your resume."
In my life I've found that the question and statement "What college did you go to? It's not listed on your resume." was only asked or me less than two times during all the interviews that I went through to score full-time and consulting gigs for investment banks on Wall Street. The interviewers were always interested in "tech-ing" me out with complex problem solving questions and then listening to my detailed explanations of the projects that I was involved in that they forgot, didn't bother, or just didn't care about what sheep-skin university I went to.
I still think that IT is the current Wild West where it's your skills that make you the man you are and not some diploma and unfocused education. The hiring managers want someone who has proven himself in technology, even if it is help desk, desktop, or some junior position than a fresh faced kid with no notches on his pocket protector who knows nothing. In IT experience and skills matter more than diplomas and certificates.
We see this all the time on Slashdot as some snot-nosed kid comes out of nowhere and kicks some company and their security department in the balls or develops a fix or a workaround for a problem that companies full of college folks can't.
My original story up there in the thread is not a usual one and I do not advocate to anyone to repeat it. I often think that I should have went back to finish at least high-school to pick-up physics, the only science course and field that I failed to learn completely. I gave the thought of trying to finish it myself even 13-years after I left but I never got back around to it and these days I'm more focused on scripting work that I just prefer learning.
PS: I think that the original story of this thread was not meant for me since I could not get into an ivy league school coming from a very bad NYC education experience being taught by rote scoring perfect 100's in state wide mathematics tests but completely unable to understand the purpose of quadratic equations then or now or how to derive trigonometric functions until a friend at work explained them all to me in 5-minutes on a white-board.
At the same time I am a first-generation immigrant of a single-mother working as a house keeper unable to pay or contribute for my higher level education yet making just enough for us to enjoy a decent life but at the same time putting us above the poverty line preventing me from taking advantage of very affordable school scholarships and grants. That famous NYC financial Catch-22, if you make enough to pay the high rents in the ass-crack parts of industrial Queens/Brooklyn neighborhoods you are no longer eligible for financial support because your net income is just too high per federal and state standards.
On top of that I was not smart enough in 7th grade to get into the three top high-schools in NYC such as Brooklyn Tech or Stuyvesant after failing to make the grade by a decent margin on their entrance exams since I was put one grade ahead after coming to the states from Europe but with poorer English skills and already equalized Mathematics skills with the kids here. There were no MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, BBS, Network (10Base-2), or Internet (SLIP) questions on those tests so my self-taught home computer skills were well missed in these exams only to be delegated to attend my local high-school sporting well aged Apple II computers with rotting 5.25" floppies.
But this is not a sob story since I am now in Houston, enjoying my life away from finance and Wall Street, living in a more normal city and enjoying life. Overall I am happy how it turned out, things could have been better and they still can be, but since I have this job and I am working doing what I like to do, I can't complain compared to my friends who are struggling after their college education left them high-and-dry with debts and no real-world work experience.
But going to a elite college is not about what you learn nearly as much as who you make friends with.
If you want to get into upper management in finance, it is a lot easier if you know people in the industry. So making friends with people whose father is in the industry helps a great deal.
Just like going to UCLA for film school increase your odds of breaking into the industry.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Days, nights, weekends... pretty much any time. That's the oil industry. On call 24/7 and they pay you for it. There were quite a few days in was in the office/shop at 8, worked all day, went home, ate dinner, got the call, went back to the shop and out on a job, got home at 6, took a shower and a 2 hour nap and went back to work.
and that revelation didn't make you any smarter...weird.