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 just heard this TV personality say something about scholastic credential which is very contrary to my understanding after 30 years at corporate workplace (but I wasn't really paying attention). I hope to check your opinion.
The TV personality said, what college a person goes for undergraduate program, says more about that person's scholastic capability than school he/she goes for graduate program.
In another word, if Candidate A goes to UCLA for undergrad and Univ. of Kentucky for graduate, and Candidate B goes to Univ. of Kentucky for undergrad and UCLA for graduate, then Candidate A has stronger education credential.
The TV personality explained it this way: It's much more competitive at the undergraduate level and harder to get into a good school at that level.
Is this true?
I had thought a person's highest level of education is what defines his/her scholastic capability and lower level educational records are not as relevant...
Probably 2-5 years after finishing a Masters it’s irrelevant.
Yeah, I can think of MAYBE two or three industries in which it actually matters, but most employers these days only check that you have the degree and don't worry so much about where it came from.
However, I can see the point the person was trying to make, only because I've seen many people attend lesser-known universities to get a master's because it's easier and cheaper.
When I'm hiring, I still look at the person's comprehensive education "journey," the decisions they made about school and when, and what they were able to do while in school ... side jobs, class projects, etc.
I place more emphasis on actual output than perceived status.
If in such a general context then undergrad, because you could a grad degree from a Stanford program that isn't that hard to get into.
But ... I agree it doesn't matter. I can scarcely believe that in 2020 that people are still paying max dollar to send their kids to the best colleges and kids are still stressing over which colleges they get into, but it happens.
Doesn't matter, at least not in my opinion. I worked with an attorney who went to some unknown undergrad school in West Virginia but then went to Harvard Law School. That catches anyone's attention. (Maybe not the best example. Harvard is Harvard, frankly.)
I also had a personal friend who went to the University of Pennsylvania (Ivy League) for undergraduate but then went to a local NE Ohio school for his MBA. A school no one would be THAT impressed with, even in Ohio, but he needed to be closer to home for family reasons. He now is living and working in NYC working as an Investment Banker making more money than God. His work loved the fact he went to U of Penn and he feels it got the ball rolling for him.
Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know how businesses think. But, me personally, if someone went to a GREAT school for either undergrad or grad school, I'd be 100% impressed regardless of the order.
Most comments suggest in the long run education credential doesn't matter. This is my understanding as well.
Just to test this theory, consider our two candidates just finished grad school and are now applying for the same job. Everything else being equal, how would you appraise these two candidates?
Most comments suggest in the long run education credential doesn't matter. This is my understanding as well.
Just to test this theory, consider our two candidates just finished grad school and are now applying for the same job. Everything else being equal, how would you appraise these two candidates?
In reality it's never a question of everything else being equal. My question would be more along the lines of "what did you do in grad school?" than which school it was.
Even considering among undergrad, for schools in the same general ranking, one isn't more impressive than the other. Some people might get off on name recognition, but that's all it is. Now if you're dropping down out of the top hundred or so, that will make a difference simply because the caliber of students who attend "Bob's College" isn't the same as those who attend an R1. I've worked with a lot of folks over the years and from what I've seen, in actual job performance, is it doesn't matter that much within the same general level. Flagships are flagships. Bob's College is Bob's College.
It's one person's opinion. It's neither right or wrong.
It's simply what that person thinks. If that TV personality is filling a positon that you are applying for - then I guess you'd be better off if you went to UCLA for undergrad.
I just heard this TV personality say something about scholastic credential which is very contrary to my understanding after 30 years at corporate workplace (but I wasn't really paying attention). I hope to check your opinion.
The TV personality said, what college a person goes for undergraduate program, says more about that person's scholastic capability than school he/she goes for graduate program.
In another word, if Candidate A goes to UCLA for undergrad and Univ. of Kentucky for graduate, and Candidate B goes to Univ. of Kentucky for undergrad and UCLA for graduate, then Candidate A has stronger education credential.
The TV personality explained it this way: It's much more competitive at the undergraduate level and harder to get into a good school at that level.
Is this true?
I had thought a person's highest level of education is what defines his/her scholastic capability and lower level educational records are not as relevant...
Someone said something on TV, that you don't recall their name, and you want us to comment on the validity of the statement that you weren't really paying attention to? How can we trust what you think was said was even accurate.
Anyway...
With my vast years of corporate experience, I can tell you the employer doesn't care where you went to college, just that you got a degree from an accredited one and hopefully in the field they hired you for. The proof of this is looking at the profiles for people in the company. There are people who are in middle management and upper management that went to some colleges I never heard of before. Seriously, I never heard of the college where they got a graduate degree. It seems major stupid to spend money, time and effort in getting a masters or doctorate from a college that people don't even know what state it is in, but people do this, and management obviously hired them and they are earning six-figures. You'd think everyone who graduated Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc., would only be hired by major corporation that could afford higher salaries, yet they hire them from colleges few people heard of. So the proof is right there, it doesn't matter for the vast majority of jobs to be successful in a large company where you went to college.
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.
