<p>My cousin graduated from Yale law school and had a lot of trouble finding a job because his employers had to pay him more than typical law students. They explained the situation very clearly to him and he ended up with a normal starting salary. He’s the smartest guy I know, and he was happy to laugh about it, but he is sure that he would have found a job more easily with a less prestigious law degree.</p>
<p>
Haha…bull in a china shop?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is professional school we’re talking about, most undergraduates even at Harvard and Yale are completely unmarketable, they are smart with broad skills, but very few specific skills that will generate income for a firm, this is unlike law school students who specialize in a particular type of law and become experts at it. Most industries outside of finance/consulting and engineering pay a pittance to undergraduates. In finance/consulting, the vast majority of undergraduate hires today tend to be math/science/engineering/economics/business. Firms tell you they look at everyone, but in practice humanity majors are few and far between. So it’s no surprise than even 30+% of these college grads could not find jobs that suited them, I’d expect exactly the same at most other top schools. Your life is definitely not set by simply getting into top undergrad.</p>
<p>No law student is an expert in any particular area of law at the time of graduation.</p>
<p>Big law firms generally pay the same salary to every first-year associates. (Some pay second-year associate salaries to new associates who clerked for judges, but the general rule is that first-year associates all get the same salary.) Graduates of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School who want to work for big firms are typically choosing between multiple offers.</p>
<p>You guys need to read “Less Wrong” a bit more… it’ll explain to you why “lay-person” is nonsense and who, if anyone, you should listen to and how to determine that. Or you could read a bunch of far more complex stuff in philosophy classes and econ to learn about rational decision-making.</p>
<p>school prestige must be determined by the ff:</p>
<ol>
<li>academe people - faculty, school admin, counselors</li>
<li>employers</li>
<li>students </li>
<li>lay people - average guy on the street</li>
</ol>
<p>That’s why research-led institutions are more likely to get the nod of those 4 sectors, and smaller schools that don’t offer grad programs or don’t have a professional school don’t get much recognition as a whole. </p>
<p>The top 15 schools, in my personal opinion, for prestige using a combination of inputs from all the 4 sectors are:</p>
<p>Group 1 - HYPSM</p>
<p>Group 2 - Berkeley, Columbia, UPenn, Cornell, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, Chicago</p>
<p>Group 3 - Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, UVa, UCLA</p>
<p>Group 4 - Emory, CMU, Notre Dame</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not once have I ever said that HYP grads all obtain choice jobs. Clearly some do not. But the point is that they have a better chance of obtaining choice jobs than does the graduate of an average school, through the power of the branding and the networking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I find ironic is that you’re citing Levine’s book to bolster your argument, when his book is actually a defense of what universities ought to do, rather than what they actually do. </p>
<p>For example, you mentioned some of the ‘thought exercises’ that Levine has stated as open-ended questions that have been asked of biology students at Chicago. To that, I would agree that such an education that allowed you to answer such questions would indeed be a valuable and thought-provoking style of education. </p>
<p>The problem is that many, probably most, schools don’t actually run their exams in this manner. Instead, they require students to regurgitate specific information that was taught to them in lecture or the textbook, with no degrees of freedom with which to apply their creativity. As a case in point, take Berkeley’s Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) 130 course, which is a keystone course required of all MCB majors, which comprise the bulk of Berkeley’s premeds. An old midterm exam with a student’s solutions are provided in the following link (free registration required). Frankly, I don’t see a single question that allows the students to exert any sort of creativity whatsoever. For example, Question #1a gives you a set of conditions and then asks whether a mutation will cause a high or low level of a particular enzyme, and why. There is no room for arguing with the test proctor that ‘that is not what the customer actually wants’ or to think outside the box, or to package a presentation with reliable metrics. I either state what the mutation does to the level of enzyme and why, or I get zero points on that question. Simple as that. Every other question is the same way. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.coursehero.com/file/51614/4mar03midterm/[/url]”>http://www.coursehero.com/file/51614/4mar03midterm/</a></p>
<p>Lest somebody accuse me of simply picking on Berkeley, how about an exam (which they call ‘quizzes’, but are actually exams) from the intro bio course (7.014) at MIT? Again, I don’t see too many creative thought-provoking questions. For example, question 1 asks you to identify the specific electron, carbon, and energy sources of various types of metabolism, explain the difference in photosynthesis, and whether either electron donors or acceptors are necessary for respiration. Again, there is only a single answer for each, and you either know it, or you get zero points. </p>
<p><a href=“http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Biology/7-014Spring-2005/A34ECA92-62EA-4F40-9D3A-F61A5CB4C3E0/0/quiz3_4_21.pdf[/url]”>http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Biology/7-014Spring-2005/A34ECA92-62EA-4F40-9D3A-F61A5CB4C3E0/0/quiz3_4_21.pdf</a></p>
<p>Look, tk21769, I’m on your side. I wish that a liberal arts college education actually did allow the types of degrees of freedom and intellectual creativity and did teach the type of flexibility that you have denoted. The problem is that, at least for many (probably most) students, that’s now how the education is. Rather, the education is rigid: the exam questions incorporate specific answers with specific methodologies, and you either complete the questions in the intended manner and provide the desired answer, or you fail. </p>
<p>The fact is, most faculty members do not want to spend much time grading papers, and certainly not have to weigh the merits of differing answers. They have far more pressing concerns for their time, i.e. their own research. Surely you would agree that the more freeflowing style of exam questions that you have denoted would inevitably lead to grade-grubbing, for who’s really to say that that one student’s answer regarding the fitness of fish vs. birds is ‘better’ and hence deserves more points than some other student’s answer? Far easier to pose exam questions where there is only one right answer, and if you don’t get it, you don’t get the points. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that entire chain of logic is faulty because, like I said, the type of education that you (and I) support is not even provided by most schools in the first place, not even at the top schools. They’re not really providing, as you say, intellectual manners in high quality discourse. Rather, they’re teaching students to stiffly regurgitate information and not dare to exercise discretion. </p>
<p>And frankly speaking, I’m not even sure that many students would want such an education anyway. Let’s be perfectly honest. Most students, even at the top schools, don’t really care about actually becoming educated. They just want to pick up the degree so that they can find a decent job. Or, they just want to use the degree to leverage themselves into a strong grad professional program (i.e. law, medicine, etc.) and then to a decent job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It proves just as much as any of your anecdotes. </p>
<p>Besides, I don’t need to point to just one doctor’s website. I can point to the entire industry of marketing. Companies spend billions of dollars every year to foster and promote their brand names. Why do that, if brand names do not provide value? Are these companies just all being stupid?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but the point is that he made sure to include his Harvard/Yale pedigree. I suspect that if he had graduated from some no-name college and med-school, he might have simply chosen to identify himself with the University of Utah.</p>
<p>Here’s a LASIK surgeon who makes sure that you can’t possibly miss his “Harvard MD”.</p>
<p>[San</a> Francisco LASIK Surgeon, San Jose LASIK Surgery and Wavefront Laser Vision Correction](<a href=“http://www.scotthyver.com/]San”>http://www.scotthyver.com/)</p>
<p>Here’s a plastic surgeon who clearly identifies himself as “Harvard-trained”. Somehow I think that if he had obtained his MD at the University of South Alabama, he would not be touting himself as “University of South Alabama trained”.</p>
<p>[Plastic</a> Surgery Philadelphia | Cosmetic Surgery | 610-565-2848](<a href=“http://www.seanwrightmd.com/]Plastic”>http://www.seanwrightmd.com/)</p>
<p>Here’s perhaps the most egregious example of all of a plastic surgeon who prominently displays (in bold!) that he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. What’s striking is that his actual medical education basically has nothing to do with Harvard whatsoever. He went to Harvard for undergrad, and then went to med school at Albert Einstein and residency training at UPMC. But none of that is in boldface. Only ‘Harvard’ and ‘magna cum laude’ are bolded. </p>
<p>[Pittsburgh</a> Plastic Surgeon Dr. Chiu](<a href=“http://www.todayscosmeticsurgery.com/index.cfm/PageID/3478]Pittsburgh”>Liquid Facelift in Pittsburgh, PA | Dr. Robert Chiu)</p>
<p>sakky, who is being cynical now? Levine’s book discusses an approach to higher education that was developed and implemented over several decades at a real university, often in fits and starts, doubtless with some compromises, but it is not entirely imaginary, untested or impractical.</p>
<p>I agree with you that the majority of schools do not offer the kind of education we’re talking about, that even some of the most selective, prestigious schools do not offer it consistently, and that a majority of students are not committed to getting it (because if they and their parents were, we’d se more of it).</p>
<p>There are important exceptions. Chicago, Reed, Swarthmore, St.John’s College all attract many students who sincerely want a serious liberal education. At Reed and SJC it’s probably a large majority of students. At Chicago and Swat it may be more of a mix. But all of these schools (including Chicago which is a major research university) have many professors who are are willing to put in the time to grade essay papers and mentor students. The same is true to some degree (often a high degree) at any of several dozen other universities and small colleges.</p>
<p>Liberal education originated as an elite institution. “Liberal” means “free”. Traditionally it was a benefit available to people wealthy enough not to have to work for others except willingly, as a service (or “calling”). It has become mass-marketed and modified accordingly (not entirely to ill effect). I think it is wrong to encourage (as you seem on the verge of doing but probably do not intend) a winner-take-all view of education in which a very few students at a very few schools take the only plum jobs in a few lucrative fields (ibanking, consulting) and the rest may as well pack it in and get certificates from Cisco and Microsoft.</p>
<p>@confidential
I couldn’t understand if you were agreeing with me or not, haha. Point is, a good college made it harder for him to get a job. I haven’t seen anyone talk about that possibility yet in this thread.</p>
<p>I have a friend who got a PhD from Yale, and when he applied for assistant professor jobs at smaller and less-prestigious colleges, he had a hard time convincing even one of the schools that he wasn’t a typically ambitious Ivy Leaguer who’d quickly move on to a “better” college as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Another friend, who isn’t nearly as bright, and has a PhD in the same field from a far-less-prestigious university, had far less trouble getting hired.</p>
<p>sakky wrote: “HYP grads … have a better chance of obtaining choice jobs than do [es] the graduate [s] of an average school,”</p>
<p>Lots of variables there for sure, but in general I think your statement is true. Here’s what gives me pause though – what IF the selection criteria for HYP are <em>negative</em> selection criteria for most jobs in this country? What IF most employers with non-Banking/Consulting/Law/Medicine jobs have found that HYP grads generally lack the qualities they look for? What if they have found that extreme intelligence doesn’t fit in 99% of the jobs in this country? What if humble attitude and above but not extreme intelligence are the #1/#2 selection criterion for a company? What if most employers find HYP grads overqualified and therefore a poor fit for the 99% of jobs in the country that are not Finance/Consulting/Law/Medicine?</p>
<p>What IF having attended HYP encourages in the job applicant the attitude “I am among the best of the best. I am not going to **** away my time and waste my potential in this $45,000/yr. entry level job corporate job … so I’ll take the job with one hand, and with the other keep looking for a better fit. As soon as I find one (within the next year), it’s adios to the $45,000 job and on to greener pastures.” How many times do you think that needs to happen in a company before there is a ban on HYP hiring?</p>
<p>If the usual 1% of openings with selection criteria that prize HYP grads are not hiring, what then? For most I suppose, it’s “grad school, here we come!”</p>
<p>
I’ve seen this with a lot of my friends, actually, many of whom still don’t have jobs 8 months after graduation. People in another thread (or perhaps this one – I get bored and drift off) were sneering at the unemployment numbers and confidently stating how easy it would be for a Harvard grad to work at Starbucks. One would be surprised how hesitant those employers are to hire such students/graduates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, why doesn’t BCBS or Aetna or United Healthcare or (fill in the blank) reimburse one penny more to the doctor who went to Yale u-grad and Harvard med, compared to the doctor who went to second-tier state u-grad and state u med?</p>
<p>Are you not also aware that residency is where it’s at when it comes to medical training – that doctors judge one another on where they did residencies, and any residency program has “mixes” of all kinds of med schools and u-grad schools among the residents?</p>
<p>There is zero a priori reason to believe that Doctor A who went to Yale and Harvard is any better of a doctor than his colleague who trained at the same residency program and went to less prestigious schools. The skills of being a doctor are learned in residency.</p>
<p>And “touting the name on the website” – please. I can open up my local papers and see ads from doctors touting degrees from the fanciest of schools – because they’re peddling schlock vitamins or miracle cures or unnecessary dermatology procedures. They put “graduated from Harvard” on there to impress the unsophisticated. I guess it does work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t get why people continue to group Harvard along with other schools if this conversation is about prestige!? Harvard belongs in its own group but yet some people still feel the need to have the others “tag” along… Who makes up these arbitrary groups? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they don’t have to. But graduates of ivy med schools can get away with charging their clients more, especially in fields like psychiatry and plastic surgery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but there may be a posteriori reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember, not everyone is as smart and savvy as you…</p>
<p>
Um, who cares? 99% of America isn’t as sophisticated as you and will always defer to the quality brand name.</p>
<p>Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.
Perception is more important than reality.</p>
<p>In the end, it all boils down to the person. My mom interviews and employs people who’ve graduated from top schools (Brown, Stanford, washU etc) and she’s found that these kids look really nice on paper, but aren’t really as top notch of job candidates as their education suggests to the hype. They may be good at selling and presenting themselves, but for career and jobs, personality and character traits don’t necessarily correlate with prestige of education.</p>
<p>People who bold themselves as “Harvard-trained” may appear as shams to you, but to the majority, doesn’t that alleviate at least some fears when you’re getting some precision-dependent surgery done? If it catches your attention, it works.</p>
<p>also, perception IS reality.</p>