http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

(07-24-2015 05:12 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

From what I remember, studies show that students with the SAT to get into Ivy League schools, but go to public schools for whatever reason, end up having identical outcomes to Ivy League graduates.

The study I read compared schools like Penn State to Ivy League schools, which makes me wonder how no-named public schools like Idaho State and Central Washington would fare.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

It makes sense, in a way. At a small school, it might be easier for a motivated student to get involved in research or become student body president. Do enough of it and you may just compensate for the lack of name recognition.

(07-24-2015 05:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:12 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

From what I remember, studies show that students with the SAT to get into Ivy League schools, but go to public schools for whatever reason, end up having identical outcomes to Ivy League graduates.

The study I read compared schools like Penn State to Ivy League schools, which makes me wonder how no-named public schools like Idaho State and Central Washington would fare.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

It makes sense, in a way. At a small school, it might be easier for a motivated student to get involved in research or become student body president. Do enough of it and you may just compensate for the lack of name recognition.

Honestly, it depends upon the field one plans on entering. Ivy dominated fields and companies are like Citadels for anyone else to try and break into the upper crust within.

Your friend is right though that for a lot of jobs, going to a place like Stanford is indeed a rip off.

Although nobody is arguing the main reason you go to University is to get the education needed to get a job, it should not be looked at as the only reason to get a University degree.

There was a time when a college graduate was considered an intellectual. Who wanted to pursue higher education to satisfy that intellectual curiosity and share ideas with people of similar intelligence and similar desires for learning. There was a time when a college degree meant an employer was hiring somebody who was smart and hard working , at least in the discipline they studied.

Today its not clear what the purpose of a University degree is. It does not seem to mean much to certain employers. Students themselves don't seem to value it much. Forgetting much of what the learned quickly. Ivy league or Ivy league level degrees seem to be more useful for building contacts than what you actually learn.

You go to Stanford instead of Idaho to build contacts with super smart people and to let super smart people know that you are a super smart person too. A degree from Stanford means you are super smart, even if your grades were average. A degree from Idaho means you are probably smart, maybe even super smart, but probably not as likely to be super smart, especially if your grades were average. And even if you are one of the super smart students at Idaho, you are surrounded by students not of the same intelligence, and you don't establish the contacts you sometimes need if you want to do something ambitious.

Sometimes your ambitious goals may even be noble, maybe you want to cure cancer or solve world hunger or just plain make the world a better place. But even then, you need to establish the right contacts or your goals will go nowhere.

(07-24-2015 05:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

If you know where you want to go after college and know who'll help you get there, that's totally the way to go.

I think the bigger "gain" from school is the networking. You draft off the folks and faculty you interact with. Know a specific field and faculty member exclusively doing work, go work with them. Yeah, going to the good school will usually get your resume or CV looked at, but, again, if you know where you want to go, don't let the hype of college fool you, and just go. You'll be fine with the right references.

I knew a few Nuc-E's at Penn State...had the chops to go to "better" schools, but PSU had the in's at the same companies...so why put up with the extra Ivy stuff if the degree is a formality to the field?

(07-25-2015 06:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  Today its not clear what the purpose of a University degree is. It does not seem to mean much to certain employers. Students themselves don't seem to value it much. Forgetting much of what the learned quickly. Ivy league or Ivy league level degrees seem to be more useful for building contacts than what you actually learn.

A degree is an extra set of criteria. It helps HR cut down the stack of resumes they have to go through. Granted, I don't speak of people who actually went to college to study a real major and not merely get a degree, the types who don't go into a liberal arts major or something similar to get one but those disciplines that actually require a ton of study.

Unfortunately, a Catch-22 has developed where you need college to get ahead even though you don't need college so it is what it is.

(07-24-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:12 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

From what I remember, studies show that students with the SAT to get into Ivy League schools, but go to public schools for whatever reason, end up having identical outcomes to Ivy League graduates.

The study I read compared schools like Penn State to Ivy League schools, which makes me wonder how no-named public schools like Idaho State and Central Washington would fare.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

It makes sense, in a way. At a small school, it might be easier for a motivated student to get involved in research or become student body president. Do enough of it and you may just compensate for the lack of name recognition.

Honestly, it depends upon the field one plans on entering. Ivy dominated fields and companies are like Citadels for anyone else to try and break into the upper crust within.

Your friend is right though that for a lot of jobs, going to a place like Stanford is indeed a rip off.

Unless you get a scholarship and would've ended up paying less to go to the private school.

But generally speaking, yes ... you're a sucker if you pay the full, exorbitant amount of tuition that private schools charge.

(07-24-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:12 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

From what I remember, studies show that students with the SAT to get into Ivy League schools, but go to public schools for whatever reason, end up having identical outcomes to Ivy League graduates.

The study I read compared schools like Penn State to Ivy League schools, which makes me wonder how no-named public schools like Idaho State and Central Washington would fare.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

It makes sense, in a way. At a small school, it might be easier for a motivated student to get involved in research or become student body president. Do enough of it and you may just compensate for the lack of name recognition.

Honestly, it depends upon the field one plans on entering. Ivy dominated fields and companies are like Citadels for anyone else to try and break into the upper crust within.

Your friend is right though that for a lot of jobs, going to a place like Stanford is indeed a rip off.

Yes, it does depend upon the field. For instance, finance, consulting and law are VERY heavily based on school reputation. I cringe whenever I hear a blanket statement "It doesn't matter where you go to school" because in those fields (where a lot of 1 percenters end up), it definitely does matter a very great deal. It also matters a lot for academia. Engineering and computer science aren't quite as Ivy-based, although that's more because the Ivys aren't as strong in those quantitative areas. The top engineering and computer science jobs still have high concentrations from places like Stanford/MIT/Carnegie Mellon and highly-ranked Big Ten engineering programs. The connections at those universities play a big role in getting your first job, which in turn plays a big role in where you go for you second job, and so on and so forth. It's not impossible to get an elite job from a non-elite school, but (a) the lack of connections makes it much more difficult and (b) there is ZERO margin for error (i.e. you need a 4.0 GPA with mega leadership positions at Run-of-the-Mill U just to get an interview, whereas someone with a 3.3 with pedestrian extracurricular activities get hired at top firms from Ivies all of the time).

I would say that a school as elite as Stanford wouldn't ever be a rip off - that's one of the few places where just the name itself on a resume can get you an interview basically anywhere in the country. Sure, it might be overkill to go to Stanford if you want to be in a non-elite profession, but very few people that have the grades, test scores and ability to go to Stanford would ever consider a non-elite profession in the first place. The non-elite private schools are where the real rip offs are (where they're charging Stanford prices for an education that is often inferior to in-state tuition at your flagship public school).

(07-27-2015 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:12 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

From what I remember, studies show that students with the SAT to get into Ivy League schools, but go to public schools for whatever reason, end up having identical outcomes to Ivy League graduates.

The study I read compared schools like Penn State to Ivy League schools, which makes me wonder how no-named public schools like Idaho State and Central Washington would fare.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

It makes sense, in a way. At a small school, it might be easier for a motivated student to get involved in research or become student body president. Do enough of it and you may just compensate for the lack of name recognition.

Honestly, it depends upon the field one plans on entering. Ivy dominated fields and companies are like Citadels for anyone else to try and break into the upper crust within.

Your friend is right though that for a lot of jobs, going to a place like Stanford is indeed a rip off.

Yes, it does depend upon the field. For instance, finance, consulting and law are VERY heavily based on school reputation. I cringe whenever I hear a blanket statement "It doesn't matter where you go to school" because in those fields (where a lot of 1 percenters end up), it definitely does matter a very great deal. It also matters a lot for academia. Engineering and computer science aren't quite as Ivy-based, although that's more because the Ivys aren't as strong in those quantitative areas. The top engineering and computer science jobs still have high concentrations from places like Stanford/MIT/Carnegie Mellon and highly-ranked Big Ten engineering programs. The connections at those universities play a big role in getting your first job, which in turn plays a big role in where you go for you second job, and so on and so forth. It's not impossible to get an elite job from a non-elite school, but (a) the lack of connections makes it much more difficult and (b) there is ZERO margin for error (i.e. you need a 4.0 GPA with mega leadership positions at Run-of-the-Mill U just to get an interview, whereas someone with a 3.3 with pedestrian extracurricular activities get hired at top firms from Ivies all of the time).

I would say that a school as elite as Stanford wouldn't ever be a rip off - that's one of the few places where just the name itself on a resume can get you an interview basically anywhere in the country. Sure, it might be overkill to go to Stanford if you want to be in a non-elite profession, but very few people that have the grades, test scores and ability to go to Stanford would ever consider a non-elite profession in the first place. The non-elite private schools are where the real rip offs are (where they're charging Stanford prices for an education that is often inferior to in-state tuition at your flagship public school).

I agree with a lot of what you said in your first paragraph. However, I do take issue with the tone of your second paragraph.

You make it sound like private schools just jack up tuition levels to exorbitant levels arbitrarily ("charging Stanford prices") and often are "rip offs" (your words).

For the umpteenth time, the "cost" of attendance for most private and public schools are very similar (with some variations, of course, depending on regional differences, etc.). The major difference is that for public schools the state - e.g., the taxpayer - subsidizes the tuition, making it less for in-state students. In many cases, out-of-state students pay a lot more to attend a state university, often closer to what they would pay for some private universities in that region.

Private universities are not by and large charging "rip off" prices, as you seem to infer. Rather, they are charging for the cost of attending said university. That cost is often very similar to what the comparable state university charges before the taxpayer subsidization.

Private universities often offer their own unique education for students. (In my case, the Jesuit education that I received served me extremely well throughout my career.). Boston College annually receives well over 30,000 applications for 2200 freshmen spots (and this with tough admission standards), so I think many would disagree with your description of value.

IMO, it will be interesting to see how these issues play out in the future. State budgets across the country are under more and more stress, and the level of these subsidizations will likely be under scrutiny, like every other item in the state budget.

(07-27-2015 11:03 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I agree with a lot of what you said in your first paragraph. However, I do take issue with the tone of your second paragraph.

You make it sound like private schools just jack up tuition levels to exorbitant levels arbitrarily ("charging Stanford prices") and often are "rip offs" (your words).

For the umpteenth time, the "cost" of attendance for most private and public schools are very similar (with some variations, of course, depending on regional differences, etc.). The major difference is that for public schools the state - e.g., the taxpayer - subsidizes the tuition, making it less for in-state students. In many cases, out-of-state students pay nearly as much to attend a state university as they would many private universities in that region.

Private universities are not by and large charging "rip off" prices, as you seem to infer. Rather, they are charging for the cost of attending said university. That cost is often very similar to what the comparable state university charges before the taxpayer subsidization.

Private universities often offer their own unique education for students. (In my case, the Jesuit education that I received served me extremely well throughout my career.). Boston College annually receives well over 30,000 applications for 2200 freshmen spots (and this with tough admission standards), so I think many would disagree with your description of value.

I didn't mean to state that all private schools are somehow rip offs. I went to a private university for law school and my cost was lower than attending the in-state public options when it was combined with scholarships. Many private schools will offer scholarships and financial aid that make it cost-competitive with public schools. That being said, I wouldn't ever pay full sticker price outside of an Ivy/Ivy-caliber school where the ROI is fairly clear.

(07-27-2015 11:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:03 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  I agree with a lot of what you said in your first paragraph. However, I do take issue with the tone of your second paragraph.

You make it sound like private schools just jack up tuition levels to exorbitant levels arbitrarily ("charging Stanford prices") and often are "rip offs" (your words).

For the umpteenth time, the "cost" of attendance for most private and public schools are very similar (with some variations, of course, depending on regional differences, etc.). The major difference is that for public schools the state - e.g., the taxpayer - subsidizes the tuition, making it less for in-state students. In many cases, out-of-state students pay nearly as much to attend a state university as they would many private universities in that region.

Private universities are not by and large charging "rip off" prices, as you seem to infer. Rather, they are charging for the cost of attending said university. That cost is often very similar to what the comparable state university charges before the taxpayer subsidization.

Private universities often offer their own unique education for students. (In my case, the Jesuit education that I received served me extremely well throughout my career.). Boston College annually receives well over 30,000 applications for 2200 freshmen spots (and this with tough admission standards), so I think many would disagree with your description of value.

I didn't mean to state that all private schools are somehow rip offs. I went to a private university for law school and my cost was lower than attending the in-state public options when it was combined with scholarships. Many private schools will offer scholarships and financial aid that make it cost-competitive with public schools. That being said, I wouldn't ever pay full sticker price outside of an Ivy/Ivy-caliber school where the ROI is fairly clear.

Frank, I have no issue with this, or your broader point above. My only issue was it seemed that you were inferring that many private schools just arbitrarily charge "Stanford prices" and, in that sense, are "rip offs". My limited point was that most private schools charge market rates, just as state schools do; the difference being that state schools have their rates subsidized, so much less is passed on to in-state students.

I think your clarification, where you refer to "full sticker" prices, is a much better and more accurate characterization; and, as I also said, I do agree with your broader point.

(07-27-2015 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 05:12 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/upshot...pe=article

Basically, the article rips on UNC for academic fraud. (Rejoice Blue Devils and Wolfpack). However, the article also talks about how differences in outcome are statistically insignificant. I think there is some truth to this.

However, I wonder how the data was collected, as there seems to be significant weight put on "school reputation" and "academic credentials." It seems to have meaning even after years of being on the job, even if that is circumstantial evidence. I would imagine the real data is more nuanced.

From what I remember, studies show that students with the SAT to get into Ivy League schools, but go to public schools for whatever reason, end up having identical outcomes to Ivy League graduates.

The study I read compared schools like Penn State to Ivy League schools, which makes me wonder how no-named public schools like Idaho State and Central Washington would fare.

It reminds me of a friend of mine who chose University of Idaho despite being admitted to Stanford. His argument is that a $180,000 degree won't get him any farther than a $24,000 degree.

It makes sense, in a way. At a small school, it might be easier for a motivated student to get involved in research or become student body president. Do enough of it and you may just compensate for the lack of name recognition.

Honestly, it depends upon the field one plans on entering. Ivy dominated fields and companies are like Citadels for anyone else to try and break into the upper crust within.

Your friend is right though that for a lot of jobs, going to a place like Stanford is indeed a rip off.

Yes, it does depend upon the field. For instance, finance, consulting and law are VERY heavily based on school reputation. I cringe whenever I hear a blanket statement "It doesn't matter where you go to school" because in those fields (where a lot of 1 percenters end up), it definitely does matter a very great deal. It also matters a lot for academia. Engineering and computer science aren't quite as Ivy-based, although that's more because the Ivys aren't as strong in those quantitative areas. The top engineering and computer science jobs still have high concentrations from places like Stanford/MIT/Carnegie Mellon and highly-ranked Big Ten engineering programs. The connections at those universities play a big role in getting your first job, which in turn plays a big role in where you go for you second job, and so on and so forth. It's not impossible to get an elite job from a non-elite school, but (a) the lack of connections makes it much more difficult and (b) there is ZERO margin for error (i.e. you need a 4.0 GPA with mega leadership positions at Run-of-the-Mill U just to get an interview, whereas someone with a 3.3 with pedestrian extracurricular activities get hired at top firms from Ivies all of the time).

I would say that a school as elite as Stanford wouldn't ever be a rip off - that's one of the few places where just the name itself on a resume can get you an interview basically anywhere in the country. Sure, it might be overkill to go to Stanford if you want to be in a non-elite profession, but very few people that have the grades, test scores and ability to go to Stanford would ever consider a non-elite profession in the first place. The non-elite private schools are where the real rip offs are (where they're charging Stanford prices for an education that is often inferior to in-state tuition at your flagship public school).

A lot depends on what you want to do and where you want to do it. If you want to stay in region out of school, going to the local University can be just as lucrative as going to the Ivy League school. For example, if you want to live in Peoria, getting your engineering degree from Bradley will open doors at Cat. However, that same degree has significantly less weight if you want to relocate to Orlando out of school. Although, the difference dissipates, to a degree, over time.

The Ivy League does open doors, no question. It helps at getting your foot in the door at multinational corporations and if you are applying in a different geographical area from where you went to college. Does graduating from Harvard help get you into a multinational law firm like Jenner & Block? Sure. But, they also have lawyers from John Marshall, Loyola and DePaul. If you are good at your job, over time, that will open just as many doors. Chief Justice Warren Berger of the US Supreme Court went to William Mitchell Law School in Minnesota.

Two last things. For certain areas of study, the Ivies clearly are a waste of money. If you want to be a grade school teacher, paying $60,000 a year to attend Brown is a bit silly. It makes no economic sense. Second, if you want to go into local politics or you are committed to stay in the geographical area where you grew up, where you went to high school matters as much, if not more, than where you went to college. In certain major cites, a significant portion of the power brokers come from a single high school.

YMMV where it concerns the cost factor. For some schools, like a lot of the elite liberal arts colleges, it's just another hurdle to weed out those who might not "fit the form." A lot of schools can throw whatever "extra" they have that might normally go into a trust or endowment, or they make it a mission to take donations and throw it back into scholarships and other relief. Some just choose not to.

I remember processing and sorting through applications at one of the universities nearby (big one, so tens of thousands of applicants), and I noticed that high schools like to brag on their transcripts as to where their kids end up going. The Ivies, MIT, Juilliard, Stanford, and Duke...seems like every public school has that one or few who can go right on in. Swarthmore? A rarity. Private school fare only, it seemed.