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 agree wholeheartedly with whoever pointed out the recruiters' experiences might vary greatly by region. And some schools have de facto Ivy-like status in their region of the country such as University of Chicago, Duke, Emory, etc. But I also think you have to acknowledge that some of the higher end state schools are very strong on their own- UVA, Cal, Texas, etc. So comparing someone from the highest tier of public schools to a Ivy League grad will not necessarily mean the Ivy Leaguer starts off with much of an advantage.
I think another key factors is if even a mid range state school grad made good use of available interships and coops. Because no one is going to fly from Cambridge or Ithaca to coop in Missouri or South Carolina. But the kid from those two states who is job hunting with that experience and an actual professional reference in their pocket might have found a great neutralizer. Especially if they are looking for a job with the same company. I had a couple of friends who were very well served by college coops at GE, Bosch and Michelin.
FWIW- my sister went to MIT but wanted to live out West and has been frustrated at times that grads of 'lesser' schools started on better same footing than her because their connections were more local or in the know. I'm sure in New England or California that would have been a different story but in her situation she heard plenty of questions insinuating she would only stay briefly before heading to a coast. She also came across people who are just as biased to 'one of their own' as any Ivy League graduate.
I think that you are referring to the academia side of higher ed, which is important institutionally, but really is not the most important aspect of university for the vast majority of undergrads. Most undergrads learn from, are shaped by, and will be forever connected to their peers, not their professors.
While top professors are found in top departments nationwide, this is much more important to graduate students than undergrads.
While I have no doubt that peers can create connections we also have to remember that those connections have grown a bit weaker with time. If you live on campus for four years then of course you have roommates. But if you commutte and transfer from a two year school then not nearly as much. Once you get to graduate level it is pretty much like watching a break shot in pool. Few hang around because with age comes marriages, kids and more work.
With social networking it made it much easier to share information and pretty much create links.
It should be noted that pretty much all work in colleges/universities is online and submitted as such. Very little is hand written.
"I would hope so! Why would you want to study under an nontenured professor?"
Well I don't think anyone can be a "non" anything. Tenure is fine as a concept but with technology these days it is being nullified. I know of one institution where people have been on a non tenured track for 20 years! They get the same three year contract renewals as those that are tenured.
"In many cases, the working class student will end up paying less at an elite school, because of generous need-based aid available through those schools' immense endowments (and their ability to cross subsidize).
Harvard requires no family contribution where parents make less than $65,000 annually (~20% of their student body). Stanford is at $60,000 (and no tuition up to $100,000). MIT is tuition-free for families under $75,000."
Yeah but isn't this getting to be a bit hypocritical then? What gets students in is the price and the grades. If they need to fill the seats would they lower the qualifications or the price? Yes there is the endowment but at the same point Harvard owes 7 billion and the most common grade is a A-
If everyone gets a A- then what exactly is the point then?
Furthermore I would rather hire someone that paid for school then someone that hasn't. If you don't pay money for something then you have no ethical right to complain about it. In the history of the world no one has ever washed a rental car - Lawrence Summers..who worked at Harvard.
When it comes down to it you are buying a name. Right now I'm taking a Stanford course and frankly where I went for a public university had a much harder standard. The subject matter is the same even one of the essays I can do practically blindfolded. And yes he did address what "Stanford" quality is and even using that standard it is still lower than what I had.
Private schools generally have lower standards then public has. How? Because the unions that exist in public schools tend to lift wages and benefits. Private schools not so much. So in order to compensate for this gap often times they enable those relatives of employees to attend for free. I believe BC or BU does something of this because I know people that did attend for free. Making matters worse as a professor you are then threatened to provide higher grades and inflate them to make sure your coworkers kids graduate. Are you really going to give a bad grade and make someone down the hall ticked off? No of course not. Harvard professor raises concerns about grade inflation - Metro - The Boston Globe
Harvard professors now admit that there are two grades. The real grade and what shows up on the transcript. So if the grades are inflated, they don't pay anything and largely got in due to family then why would I as a potential employer validate this parchment of a degree with a cent of net worth
Because no one is going to fly from Cambridge or Ithaca to coop in Missouri or South Carolina. B
Actually....one place I worked with was presented with a lists of people for a unpaid internship. One of which was from Stanford and we're in south east Ma! So yes there are some that desperate to put things on their resume. Just as I know some that lived in Australia while working online for a university in Vermont and then some that might work for some ngo taking trips but not really doing work for a wage.
Thanks for all the replies! Industry was certainly highlighted in the article as relevant. You all bring up a ton of great points, one mentioned that truly relates to the subject would be statistics regarding state grads with work experience compared to Ivy and whether or not that impacts some of what the employers in here pointed out about difference in fit in the "general" workplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adhom
Read whatever you have to to make you feel better about yourself. If you graduated from a state school and you have a brilliant career, more power to you. But most of my peers from my Ivy League graduating class are doing well career wise and I doubt this article is going to change that fact.
I'm going to assume this was aimed at the hypothetical people who attended a state school but feel inferior to Ivy grads because of it and read articles like this one solely for validation of that choice, who I figure must be out there, rather than at me, who didn't attend a state school. It's an interesting topic from employee/employer perspectives even if the bottom line of recruitment numbers can be obvious without it.
Last edited by cyberphonics; 04-05-2014 at 10:46 AM..
Generally speaking, if you have an opportunity to go to an Ivy League school, and they are offering you a good financial package (generally they offer more generous packages than state schools and are cheaper than state schools unless your parents have 200k+ household income where you pay full price), then you should go to the Ivy League school.
It will open up doors throughout your entire life. Trust me on this one. It isn't fair, but it's true. You will always have that network. This is especially true for the truly top Ivies (so probably Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia).
You can also throw in Stanford and MIT, which, while they aren't in the Ivy League, will give you the same advantages as the four schools above.
I generally agree with the article but I also see your point; they're not mutually exclusive. Attending a famous university definitely WILL improve your chances of getting great opportunities. Of all the people in my family, the one who has the most material success is the one who went to the most famous university. He also was active in a national fraternity. The opportunities that came his way because of who he knows and who their daddy knows is mind boggling.
But it's imperative that the grad provide early employers with good work and demonstrate a superior work ethic to succeed in business. That doesn't happen with plenty of people who have excellent academic credentials. They sailed into the Ivies with family legacies, or got there through parental pressure, but everything has always been handed to them and they've never had to work for money. People raised like that, whether they went to the Ivies or the state U, have a hard time adjusting to the servant mentality needed for entry-level jobs. In the case of my relative, he worked in steel mills every summer of his college career and was successful in sports, so he had no trouble demonstrating his ability to take orders and get the job done. Those qualities are also true of other people I know, but in my experience, the person who also had the name education had opportunities "fall" his way that never came to those of us not members of the in-crowd.
So, yes, if an opportunity to attend an Ivy League school or some other world-renowned university comes along, I'd also recommend jumping on it. No one's saying it's a bad thing. It's a edge in life that can't be beat. But MANY Ivy grads do not have a desire for accomplishments and a work ethic to go along with their credentials. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if recruiters look at them long and hard.
While I have no doubt that peers can create connections we also have to remember that those connections have grown a bit weaker with time. If you live on campus for four years then of course you have roommates. But if you commutte and transfer from a two year school then not nearly as much. Once you get to graduate level it is pretty much like watching a break shot in pool. Few hang around because with age comes marriages, kids and more work.
With social networking it made it much easier to share information and pretty much create links. why would I as a potential employer validate this parchment of a degree with a cent of net worth
The vast majority of undergrads are students coming out of high school. Most are not transfer students (even more so at elite schools). These students are building social bonds that last--after graduating they will move to cities where many of their peers move. They will likely marry and have kids later than prior generations. Top schools are full of students who move from around the country. They live and socialize together. Most students are not visiting home regularly or commuting. Most live on campus for multiple years. Most eat on campus for multiple years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
It should be noted that pretty much all work in colleges/universities is online and submitted as such. Very little is hand written.
"I would hope so! Why would you want to study under an nontenured professor?"
Well I don't think anyone can be a "non" anything. Tenure is fine as a concept but with technology these days it is being nullified. I know of one institution where people have been on a non tenured track for 20 years! They get the same three year contract renewals as those that are tenured. why would I as a potential employer validate this parchment of a degree with a cent of net worth
I don't think this makes any difference for undergrads' college experience. This is really only an issue for those who enter a career in academia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
Yeah but isn't this getting to be a bit hypocritical then? What gets students in is the price and the grades. If they need to fill the seats would they lower the qualifications or the price? Yes there is the endowment but at the same point Harvard owes 7 billion and the most common grade is a A-
If everyone gets a A- then what exactly is the point then?
Furthermore I would rather hire someone that paid for school then someone that hasn't. If you don't pay money for something then you have no ethical right to complain about it. In the history of the world no one has ever washed a rental car - Lawrence Summers..who worked at Harvard.why would I as a potential employer validate this parchment of a degree with a cent of net worth
Grade inflation has been an issue at Ivy League schools for decades. But grad schools and employers still take on large numbers of Ivy alums--there does not seem to be a devaluing of Ivy degrees because of grade inflation.
I'm not sure what you mean by when you say that students get in for the price and the grades. Most elite schools admit students "need blind (there are certainly some 'proxy' criteria that probably contribute to these schools admitting a higher proportion of students from the upper classes, like going to a private high school with a reputation for high academic standards, but that is probably beside the point of this thread)." As I pointed out, these schools offer generous aid to working class students. Those students, of course, need to meet the competitive admissions standards to get in.
How would a hiring manager know whether a prospective employee paid for school? And why should it matter? There are people who do not pay for school but get fantastic educations. If a hirer had access to that information, I think they would be foolish to assume that the prospective employee is less qualified because they received more grants than another applicant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
When it comes down to it you are buying a name. Right now I'm taking a Stanford course and frankly where I went for a public university had a much harder standard. The subject matter is the same even one of the essays I can do practically blindfolded. And yes he did address what "Stanford" quality is and even using that standard it is still lower than what I had.
This is anecdotal evidence, but I'm curious what the course is, whether it is online, and what exactly you mean when you say the professor addressed what "Stanford" quality is. I would also expect an essay to be easy for a student in a subject they had already taken. That said, it is frequently true that elite schools have courses that are the fundamental equivalents of courses at non-elite schools--and they even cover the same subject matter. Frankly, Discrete Mathematics is not a different subject at Stanford or Florida State. Shakespeare's plays are not written differently at Harvard and Univ. of Alabama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
Private schools generally have lower standards then public has. How? Because the unions that exist in public schools tend to lift wages and benefits. Private schools not so much. So in order to compensate for this gap often times they enable those relatives of employees to attend for free. I believe BC or BU does something of this because I know people that did attend for free. Making matters worse as a professor you are then threatened to provide higher grades and inflate them to make sure your coworkers kids graduate. Are you really going to give a bad grade and make someone down the hall ticked off? No of course not. Harvard professor raises concerns about grade inflation - Metro - The Boston Globewhy would I as a potential employer validate this parchment of a degree with a cent of net worth
How do you come to the conclusion that private schools have lower standards than public schools? I don't think that children of professors are a statistically significant portion of the student body at private schools. A quick Google search suggests that private school faculty are more highly compensated than public school faculty:
Harvard professors now admit that there are two grades. The real grade and what shows up on the transcript. So if the grades are inflated, they don't pay anything and largely got in due to family then why would I as a potential employer validate this parchment of a degree with a cent of net worth
The link indicates that one, anonymous professor gives two grades. It does not suggest that the practice is widespread. Grades are inflated, yes (more in some departments and schools than others). Some people don't pay for tuition or fees (people who come from families that do not make much money). Some people are legacies (~7-15%). Of the three factors you suggest makes a top school grad undesirable for employers, the only one that I think makes sense is that grades are inflated. If a hiring manager makes decisions about hiring entry-level employees based on undergraduate GPA, then I can see how that would be significant. But I think that such a hiring manager would be making a mistake to categorically dismiss candidates who went to schools that are rumored to have grade inflation problems.
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.
