Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is university rankings in most countries and in the UK you stand a better chance os securing a top job if you went to Oxford or Cambridge or failing that UCL, Imperial, LSE or one of the other 24 Universities that make up the Russell Group. There are over 130 universities in the UK but only 24 in the Russell Group.
It's everywhere. The Ivies, rightly or wrongly, are coveted here to varying degrees depending on a person's social standing and aspirations and, to a degree, professional ambitions.
What's confusing is people risking fraud and corruption charges, etc. for schools that aren't even, honestly worth getting in trouble over, by any measure.
I mean, If you've decided you're gonna gonna really commit to going whole hog into graft and corruption...your pick is ...USC? Really? I mean, if you're gonna cheat anyway, hell, why not aim a little higher?
I guess "go big or go home" doesn't apply.
That was my feeling. "USC? Really"?
Since we are both City Data "old timers", over the years; I have learned your undergrad alma mater, and I think it's better academically, than the coveted colleges with name brand recognition.
This thought occurred to me in regards to the cheating admission scandal. Has some universities become a status brand? Clearly these students would not have measured up to regular admission standards for these universities but they most likely could have been accepted to other lesser known universities. It doesn’t seem like it’s about academic achievement nor a brighter financial future. It seems as if it’s another brand or status ideal for these types of people.
What do you think? Have you ever encountered brand snobbery in regards to universities?
The worse snobbery I have seen is in among the law schools. I used to think medical schools were bad with the rigid hierarchy and treatment of allied health workers with disregard (nurses, technicians, etc.). But I learned law is even worse. Basically, for a typical state university, one has to graduate in about the top 10% just to get a chance for a job in "Big Law" meaning the big legal firms of the metropolitan areas. Such firms in "Big Law" typically gave a preference to the "Top 14" law schools. But during the recession it got worse. That means top graduates at law schools of the in-state flagship program will likely get overlooked for a Harvard graduate or Yale graduate. Law school placement of interns at "Big Law" is brutally competitive.
As for medical schools, back in the 90s they had a hierarchy in major medical centers such that an MD from an Ivy League school was considered far more prestigious than an MD from the local in-state school. I literally had one professor tell me to go to Stanford rather than Arizona if given a choice. Then within a hospital there was a hierarchy - specialists like surgeons, radiologists, etc. were of higher prestige than a primary care physician. And many medical students went into medical school for the money and prestigate of EROAD residencies rather than to genuinely help patients. At the top of that hierarchy was an MD/PhD from someplace like Johns Hopkins or Stanford.
But as bad as that was, at least a local in-state medical student was usually able to get a residency and job in a hospital. The problem with law schools nowadays would be that even those in the top 10% of a local in-state school would be outright rejected by "Big Law" in someplace like New York. The law school job hunt is brutal and mostly unsuccessful for many graduates.
The exception to the pattern of in-state law graduates being tossed aside would be if they had a JD/PhD such that the PhD was in something like genetics, computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, etc. Because then they could practice patent law and make a huge amount of money at very respected firms like those in the patent wars of mobile devices (Android, iPhone, etc). So, just to have any sense of normalcy of job options at an in-state school one has to earn a JD and PhD which is a far cry from the 80s when lawyers were in high demand. The legal profession is brutal.
As for MD vs JD, there are many malpractice lawyers who make a living destroying the careers of MDs. That is another reason why the legal profession's brutality is worst than medical school. Here, Alec Baldwin plays a Harvard-trained surgeon being sued by a lawyer and loses his case with his arrogance.
Michael Spence won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics (along with George Akerlof and Joseph E. Stiglitz). Way back in 1973, Spence published a landmark paper on "Job Market Signaling." The model shows that employers hiring employees are like investors investing under conditions of uncertainty, sort of analogous to buying a lottery ticket.
Employees "signal" to potential employers about their (unobservable) work characteristics by obtaining credentials from academic institutions. The better the academic institution, the more credible the signal about the employee's skills and work characteristics.
When I was in high school, universities with high perceived "prestige" was all the rage in my family & to a degree at school. I understood why they were perceived as prestige, but I didn't enjoy all the "to be successful you'd need to go there" attitude, basically snobbery without saying it to your face.
Plus on the side, I wasn't a straight A student. I was a B average student mainly because, I knew that grades at the end of the day didn't matter. Grades are just checkpoints in your academic career. What mattered was understanding the knowledge, the body of knowledge for your chosen field of study. Sure grades do matter somewhat to employers, but in general at most universities, if you at least understood the basics, you'd likely pass with a B average.
Needless to stay, I went on to study at a decent state university and earned my BS and MS in Electrical Engineering. I already earn more than the other folks in my family who went to more "prestigious" universities. So in the end, I don't see what the big deal was that my family was touting. You can be successful no matter where you went to school, what matters more is understanding that the economic law of supply & demand applies to careers as well, so if money is what you're after (which is usually the case), make decisions knowing that as well.
Set your expectations. Manage them to be realistic. Know your boundaries of how hard you can push yourself given your own situation. Stick to a program, do the best you can and you will be just fine.
Well said. Employers generally don't care too much about your GPA. They care about what you can do for them.
If you're in Engineering/technical field - you're probably aware that the public land-grant universities often have some of the best departments around...and again - it's what you do with it, and what you know and cand perform - that makes a difference in your career.
Remember that wall street investment banking and especially supreme court appointments are very very specific and don't apply to 99.99 percent of other successful people in the world. Even 99.99 percent of Ivy League grads won't ever be considered for the supreme court. Of course, probably goes without saying the opportunities that present a recent Ivy League grad are significant.
I have a family member who is a managing partner at a big 4 accounting firm (250k salary when he made partner years ago, no idea what he makes now). Went to a non-highly selective school, I'll just make a guess of a 26 on ACT and a 3.5 gpa out of high school. And that's probably a little above the median for university he went to. School is accredited in business but not accounting. No one outside the state that this school is in would really recognize the name of the school. Nothing outstanding about this example...Point is, nothing spectacular or elite about my relative, just a smart enough guy with a strong work ethic, good with networking, social skills, etc.
What is it about USC that's such a big deal? (I mean--prestige-wise, not scandal-wise, haha). I'm from NorCal, so I'm out of the loop. Why are people (apparently) paying Bega-bucks to get into USC??
USC is not an academic powerhouse or anything like Stanford or Harvard but it offers reasonable academics, LA location, sports, rich peers and Greek culture. It suits social influencer and Hollywood wannabes perfectly and adds fun for others too. It’s big enough for scholars, athletes, wealthy fashionistas and random extras to co-exist without rubbing elbows. It’s not tough like MIT or Johns Hopkins to scare faint of heart, probably they can hang out without too much effort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean, if you're gonna cheat anyway, hell, why not aim a little higher? 
