My take on college
 

It seems to me there is a growing obsesson in America among parents and students to gain admission to top colleges.

Personally I don't think it matters where you go to school nearly as much as parents and/or students believe. If your goal is to make money it really isnt that hard if you are smart. If you really care about studying and being around top academics then I can see the logic behind getting a P/H/Y degree. But most people at these schools go into financially rewarding careers.

I guess my main point is that if you are smart and your main motivation it to make money it really isn't hard to do.

Thoughts?

Re: My take on college
 

It just makes it easier. Self-selectivity. It's going to be much harder to make serious money without much hard work unless your good at selling things (houses) or something. There are also requirements for a lot of jobs. Your right a college education isn't required to make serious money but on average it's going to be a lot easier.

Re: My take on college
 

It seems you are discussing the issue of whether it matters to go to a great school. While certainly you can only get out of your education that which you put in, when you begin looking for the top jobs, the big employers generally gravitate towards the higher ranking schools. Now if you are failing out of an Ivy League school you are just as screwed as if you are failing out of a crappy school. But if you were hiring and had two candidates. The first has a BA and 3.0 GPA from Harvard, the second has a BA and 3.0 GPA from Big State U, which do you think is the better candidate all things being equal?

The college you go to is more about opening doors than anything else. The better your school the more doors that will be there...Whether you open those doors and take advantage is obviously up to you...

Re: My take on college
 

Riverman,
The signalling theory of education, one of the two major hypotheses labor economists use to explain the large returns to education, gives an explanation people might go to school even if they learn anything useful there. The idea is that employers can't tell high-ability and low-ability workers apart, at least not in a job interview. High-ability workers are more productive than low-ability workers (although the employer can't observe productivity until some time after they hire a new employee), so firms are willing to pay more for high-ability workers. But if the firm offers higher wages for high-ability workers, they need a way to tell the workers apart before hiring them.

College provides a way for workers to reveal their ability. To get a college degree, students must complete a series of annoying tasks. If these tasks cause sufficiently more hardship for low-ablity students than for high-ability students, then the low-ability students will not go to college despite the higher wages offered to college graduates. And high-ability workers will go to college because firms will only offer high-wages to college graduates (workers that have proven their high ability).

Re: My take on college
 

At a big time college your network of other successful people is going to be a lot larger. Let's just say I know a lot of successful people who either got to big time grad schools or work fairly successful first jobs. Networks are probally important then what you know or what your grades are but your grades are probally going to get you in the door. (I went to a nerdy Ivy League College <Cornell>).

Re: My take on college
 

Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

Re: My take on college
 

But by the same token, those dumbest and least reflective people wouldn't be able to succeed in the fields the brilliant students were entering, even if they wanted to.

Re: My take on college
 

Riverman,

I'm with you on this. Having created a career for myself independent of my college education, I see college as a way to learn, and make friends. You can get a great education at many public universities for a fraction of the price of an ivy league school. Personally, I think that anyone who spends six figures on a college education just to land a nice job is a tool, but I'm sure the majority of OOT will disagree with me on this.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying, but maybe the "ability" needed for the high-paying jobs you are talking about is conformity and brown-nosing, which could be signalled by certain college activities. Plus, you are comparing two groups of college grads, while I'm comparing college grads to non-college grads.

Re: My take on college
 

Triumph,

I agree.

JPK,

I don't entirely agree. If someone only wants to make $, the "investment" of a P/H/Y degree is definitely "worth it."

Re: My take on college
 

I think anyone who has already graduated from college and established a career but still manages to have a South park avatar is a tool.

And no one spend six figures on college to land a nice job. They go to college to land a job, they spend 6 figures on an "elite" school to feel special. Some of the best schools in America are state funded institutions that wouldn't cost much more than $40,000 for four years of tuition, room, and board.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
Riverman,

I'm with you on this. Having created a career for myself independent of my college education, I see college as a way to learn, and make friends. You can get a great education at many public universities for a fraction of the price of an ivy league school. Personally, I think that anyone who spends six figures on a college education just to land a nice job is a tool, but I'm sure the majority of OOT will disagree with me on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the most careful empirical studies find very small effects (in terms of earnings) of going to an elite school compared to a decent public university, so this fits with your intuition.

Re: My take on college
 

going to a top tier school means the world when you are trying to get a job. school reputation weighs for so much that there are plenty of jobs you won't ever be considered for (after gradution. 20 yrs down the line, it does matter less) without an ivy (or equivalent) degree.

top grades schools are definetly worth it. what isnt worth anything are mid tier or worse private schools.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't entirely agree. If someone only wants to make $, the "investment" of a P/H/Y degree is definitely "worth it."

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I'm not doubting that. Just saying you can get one at a public school for a fraction of the price, and be about as well off. The cost of tuition at private schools is simply astronomical.

All it comes down to is a matter of personal preference. If you like the social status you gain from graduating from Harvard then more power to you.

Re: My take on college
 

It's probably always better to go to, um, a better school... but yeah, some people put too much emphasis on it. You can go to Harvard or whatever and still be a lazy retard.

It's better to be an educated person at a crappy no-name art school than someone that didn't really pay attention to classes at an Ivy league school.

Re: My take on college
 

here's some good research on the subject:

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/409.pdf

going to a school with higher tuition tends to increase earnings. going to a more selective school tends to increase earnings. going to a school with higher average SAT scores does not affect earnings.

Re: My take on college
 

My, what a nice looking young man!
You're from Bushwood, aren't you?

He's not a member, Grandma.
He's a caddy!

Judge Smails invited me at the Club.

Of course. You're the young man
who wants to be in the Senate.

Well, you two look like a couple of boogies.

Why don't you just scamper along now?

May I escort you out, ma'am?

Hold on, son. Are you trying to make time
with my best girl?

I want you to meet Chuck Schick.
He's clerking for me this summer...

...until he passes the bar.

See you on deck, Senator!

I'm going to law school, too.

Really? Are you going to Harvard?

No. St. Copius of Northern....

Where?

Re: My take on college
 

Interesting discussion. Another approach is to look at WHY these school have become "top" schools. Better/more experienced professors, greater exposure to recruitment by companies all around the country, and prestige are perhaps among the list of reasons why schools become known as "top schools."

I think the general notion here is that while later in life the name of the school you went to might not have any impact on your career, going to a top school may give you opportunities that others (from "worse" schools) don't have. It's all a matter of whether or not you take advantage of it. A lazy ass from Harvard probably won't have the successful career of a motivated, hard-working graduate from a big state school.

But like someone pointed out, holding all other factors constant, the name of your school can and will give you an edge.

FWIW, I attend a large state school and I have no problem with it at all.

Another important consideration is the environment you put yourself into by going to a certain school. If you go to no-name community college and you're around people who don't give a [censored] about school and barely graduated high school, you might become less motivated or spend too much time hanging out with and being influenced by people who really don't care much about school. Certainly there are exceptions to this, but your peers who you interact with at school could have a large impact on what you get out of your education.

Anyways, my $.02.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a 4th year student, i must say that i am kind of seeing this as well. getting a job seems to depend on how well you can bs during an interview, and not much else.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was at Penn in the 60s, the brilliant students indeed went to grad school "in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields." The middling students went to med school and law school, and the dullest people were in the Wharton School from which they emerged to make a lot of money in business. (The obvious example of the last group is Donald Trump who was at Penn in the Wharton School while I was there.)

This is apparently all effed up from your perspective, since your perspective seems to place the highest priority on making pots of money. But not everyone is motivated by money. Those of us who chose "esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields"--and I was one--did so for the passion of intellectual challenge and the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. We deliberately chose fields that were less rewarding financially, but more rewarding intellectually. We looked down on the Wharton School and people like Donald Trump. Even today I find the Donald unspeakably vulgar, and I would not trade places with him for all the tea in China.

Of course, I went to school in the 60s--before the Reagan years....

Re: My take on college
 

I'm too young to know first-hand how going to a good school affects your wealth. But, tons of my friends from high school frequently bitch about how dumb their peers/classes are at their tier 4 or 5 schools.

Re: My take on college
 

What is interesting is how people always relate life success to money.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a 4th year student, i must say that i am kind of seeing this as well. getting a job seems to depend on how well you can bs during an interview, and not much else.

[/ QUOTE ]

getting your first job out of college:

2/3 - who you know
1/6 - grades/major/your college's name recognition
1/6 - bs ability in an interview

Re: My take on college
 

I just like a big, highly regarded college b/c it makes it easier for me to get a job that I consider rewarding, and probably in much less time (and with less effort) than if I went to a worse school.

I think if you are highly motivated, almost anyone (especially those of us fortunate enough to live in first-world countries) can be monetarily successful. But achieving that goal may require much more difficult, unsatisfying work coming from a worse college.

One last point, as cliche as it sounds, money is not everything. I don't know why so many people think it's unfathomable that incredibly intelligent people choose career paths that may be much more intrinsically rewarding, but which pay less. It all boils down to what your priorities are.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably always better to go to, um, a better school... but yeah, some people put too much emphasis on it. You can go to Harvard or whatever and still be a lazy retard.

It's better to be an educated person at a crappy no-name art school than someone that didn't really pay attention to classes at an Ivy league school.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet the lazy retard from Harvard will still have 10x as many recruiting dollars thrown at him before graduation.....

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was at Penn in the 60s, the brilliant students indeed went to grad school "in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields." The middling students went to med school and law school, and the dullest people were in the Wharton School from which they emerged to make a lot of money in business. (The obvious example of the last group is Donald Trump who was at Penn in the Wharton School while I was there.)

This is apparently all effed up from your perspective, since your perspective seems to place the highest priority on making pots of money. But not everyone is motivated by money. Those of us who chose "esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields"--and I was one--did so for the passion of intellectual challenge and the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. We deliberately chose fields that were less rewarding financially, but more rewarding intellectually. We looked down on the Wharton School and people like Donald Trump. Even today I find the Donald unspeakably vulgar, and I would not trade places with him for all the tea in China.

Of course, I went to school in the 60s--before the Reagan years....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is interesting is how people always relate life success to money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money's a really easy way to keep score because it's just a number. Obviously, there are other characteristics that fit the bill, but money's definitely the simplest.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was at Penn in the 60s, the brilliant students indeed went to grad school "in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields." The middling students went to med school and law school, and the dullest people were in the Wharton School from which they emerged to make a lot of money in business. (The obvious example of the last group is Donald Trump who was at Penn in the Wharton School while I was there.)

This is apparently all effed up from your perspective, since your perspective seems to place the highest priority on making pots of money. But not everyone is motivated by money. Those of us who chose "esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields"--and I was one--did so for the passion of intellectual challenge and the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. We deliberately chose fields that were less rewarding financially, but more rewarding intellectually. We looked down on the Wharton School and people like Donald Trump. Even today I find the Donald unspeakably vulgar, and I would not trade places with him for all the tea in China.

Of course, I went to school in the 60s--before the Reagan years....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be surprised. There was a considerable shift in national values during the Reagan administration--remember that sitcom where Michael J. Fox was the conservative, money-oriented kid with the hippy-dippy parents....

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be surprised. There was a considerable shift in national values during the Reagan administration--remember that sitcom where Michael J. Fox was the conservative, money-oriented kid with the hippy-dippy parents....

[/ QUOTE ]

It also might have something to do with Wharton being THE undergrad business school, but there being a lot of others in the same league as Penn for a liberal arts-type education.

Also, Michael J. Fox as a kid? A quick IMDB search brings up "Family Ties", but that was a bit before my time (I would've been 3 or 4 when it went off the air).

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]


I think Wharton is attracting better students these days ... the kids I know there are way smarter than the ones I know doing arts/sciences at Penn, though I'm sure there are still some brilliant people in a/s.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are u talking about? Wharton has all the retard jocks.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are advantages in the admissions process that carry over to the hiring process that explain some of those kids.

Also, past a certain point, being smart is extremely overrated when it comes to being successful.

scrub

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

as a 4th year student, i must say that i am kind of seeing this as well. getting a job seems to depend on how well you can bs during an interview, and not much else.

[/ QUOTE ]

getting your first job out of college:

2/3 - who you know
1/6 - grades/major/your college's name recognition
1/6 - bs ability in an interview

[/ QUOTE ]

no wonder i cant find a job [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was at Penn in the 60s, the brilliant students indeed went to grad school "in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields." The middling students went to med school and law school, and the dullest people were in the Wharton School from which they emerged to make a lot of money in business. (The obvious example of the last group is Donald Trump who was at Penn in the Wharton School while I was there.)

This is apparently all effed up from your perspective, since your perspective seems to place the highest priority on making pots of money. But not everyone is motivated by money. Those of us who chose "esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields"--and I was one--did so for the passion of intellectual challenge and the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. We deliberately chose fields that were less rewarding financially, but more rewarding intellectually. We looked down on the Wharton School and people like Donald Trump. Even today I find the Donald unspeakably vulgar, and I would not trade places with him for all the tea in China.

Of course, I went to school in the 60s--before the Reagan years....

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of rant is exactly why people have disdain for intellectuals. It's fine if you want to do whatever you choose to do because you are passionate about it, but don't treat those who made different choices with condesention.

And I don't know about the 60's, but the kids going to Wharton are definitely not the dumbest kids at Penn.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Econ,

Maybe I have lost perspective. I went to a top school, and my impression was that some of the dumbest, least reflective kids got the "best" jobs while the kids I considered brilliant took scholarships or went to grad school in esoteric/specialized yet financially unrewarding fields.

I guess I'm trying to say that from my perspective things are effed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are advantages in the admissions process that carry over to the hiring process that explain some of those kids.

Also, past a certain point, being smart is extremely overrated when it comes to being successful.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

These are really good points, and I had not considered the second one.

The difference between a 130 IQ and a 170 probably means next to nothing when you are structuring an IPO, but a ton in researching cancer or doing nuclear physics.

Re: My take on college
 

You guys should read The Millionaire Next Door. Like others have stated, if you goal is purely money, then what school you go to isnt nearly as important as people make it out to be.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is interesting is how people always relate life success to money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the best non-poker post you have ever made.

Re: My take on college
 

Well I might as well give my 2 cents. I went to Ohio State for undergrad, majored in chemistry (which OSU is ranked in the top 20 for grad school, top 15 for undergrad among public schools, from US NWR). I graduated with a 3.5, 3.6ish in the major, 3.4 in the general courses (FWIW). I did research, which was a great experience and landed me great reference letters. I am now at an Cornell, working on my PhD in chemistry.

What I can say from teaching undergrad courses is that there is little difference between what you learn at Cornell than OSU. Most decent public schools will teach you the same courses, the same material (with some minor differences of course), and at the end of the day you get the nearly the same eduaction. Where there exists a difference is in the lab. If you are in the sciences or engineering, probably the most important thing you do in your undergrad is research. If you do well there, you will find yourself into just about any grad school you choose. I think most large state schools have more to offer than the top tier private schools. The reason is simple, the departments tend to be bigger (more professors) and you will have more options for research. For this reason, state schools do well in attracting top scientists and engineers. Also, you can usually find a few professors in every department at any state school who are highly regarded in their fields. I suspect this may not be true for every field, but my conclusion is the top tier private schools do not have much to counter what you can get at a good state school in science and engineering.

One final sidenote, just because a professor is a leader in their field does not make them a good teacher. There is absolutely no requirement that a professor have experience teaching when he/she is hired. So often, you are not guaranteed a better classroom experience at a more expensive school, in fact you may find most professors become to absorbed in their research to do well in the classroom (this is also true at state schools). Finally, employers know all of this too. There are so many qualities an employer will look for and it rarely will come down to where you went to school. Letters of rec, for example, are on of the most important tools to landing a good job...

Re: My take on college
 

In the case of the very top schools, companies that aggressively recruit (Goldman, Bain, etc.) are not looking for knowledge gained during college. They are pretty much looking for raw intelligence, problem solving skills, and a work ethic.

This should mean that school doesn't matter that much in hiring, but the reality is that these types of firms really only hire from 3 or 4 schools. So if Ibanking/consulting is what someone really wants to do and they know it, the advantage of a top school is considerable.

Re: My take on college
 

[ QUOTE ]
College provides a way for workers to reveal their ability. To get a college degree, students must complete a series of annoying tasks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, that is the best description for college ever.

Re: My take on college
 

I have 2 friends who work at Goldman from Cornell and they can attest to that. Most of the big Wall Street firms won't even let you get the foot in the door if your not from a couple of elite universities.

But for most jobs I don't think it matters all that much. Same thing can be said about Law School and other higher levels of schools (MBA, Med, etc.)