Mythbuster: "It doesn't matter where you do undergrad, only MA-JD-MBA-MD matter"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think those stats are probably greatly distorted by for-profit colleges in Tier 4. There's a big difference between University of Phoenix Online and a solid branch campus of a state U, but they're both Tier 4.

Yes, but this is comparing tier 4 undergrads who have a tier 1 grad degree. If that includes Phoenix alumni, they must be truly exceptional to work their way into Yale or Johns Hopkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

The trolling here is rather sad. The program I am associated with has a selectivity of about 10% and it is discussed often on this board as an "elite" school. I'm sorry if my opinion (which is mine, but based on experience with an increasingly large number of PhD students) offends you, but it's not irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

What do you expect from a PHD professor, he has spend his whole life in School.

I just hear PHD and I think afraid of the real world, add professor to it and you get afraid to leave school.

1. I am not a "he." Nice stereotype just because I am an engineer. Remember this board is at least 50% women.
2. I have not spent (note my ability to conjugate verbs and use proper grammar) my whole life in school. I actually started one company previously, have worked several years in industry and am now in the initial stages of starting another company while still working as a professor. Engineering research in academia is where the products you use -- things like GPS, pacemakers, artificial organs, DNA sequencing and numerous others -- are born. I'm a professional inventor and I work as a professor because that is where research is done now. Bell Labs and other places where industrial research to create the technologies (and jobs) of tomorrow are dead. If research is done outside of academia these days it's probably at a defense contractor where the benefit will only exist in newer fancier weapons. I and others are one major reason your kids are dying to get into these "elite" schools -- to have a chance to see that process in action.

While I fully agree my experience is not relevant to everyone and are specific to me and my profession, your criticisms are not in any way the reason why. And you should really be ashamed of your sexist assumptions.

[Anonymous]

StandIng ovation!! ?????? I for one am very thankful to you for sharing your experience and perspective. Ignore the haters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academically, looking at the differences between tier 1 and tier 3 is minimal, and what is best for an individual is where they should go.

Tier 1 examples, HYPS (NYU?), MIT, Caltech, Duke? RPI? Good schools.

Tier 2, by their definitions are the SLAC's

Tier 3 are mostly the premier private schools...UCal, SUNY, UMD, PSU, UMD, UDEL, UVA, Va Tech, UNC, etc.

Tier 4 are regional schools.

Tier 1-3 earn the same. Tier 4 are much lower. SO, they are saying that UVA, Va Tech and W & M have the same earning potential as Harvard, etc.

But, it probably is more a result of who goes where rather than the school.

There is not a significant difference in the capabilities of people who graduate from Tier 1, 2, or 3. Some people do not want the big schools...prefer the intimate atmosphere of a SLAC. Others are unable to spend the cash for an elite, or prefer the states schools. Some people what the scene at a state school.

There is just so much wrong here......I can't even.

[Anonymous]

Really hope that the people talking about all these tiers and gradations are not actual parents of college bound kids. Dread to think of the damage you are doing to them if you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from less

er known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

and the PP being quoted is why the kids from the top tier earn more.... apparently, it's a "help your own kind out" society. People who went to higher end schools help out their own kind, even if they are less qualified. The social aspect is prioritized over the intellectual merits.

[Anonymous]

For JDs, only true to the extent that top colleges place much, much better in law schools. For lawyers, the ONLY thing that matters is where one went to law school, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

What do you expect from a PHD professor, he has spend his whole life in School.

I just hear PHD and I think afraid of the real world, add professor to it and you get afraid to leave school.

1. I am not a "he." Nice stereotype just because I am an engineer. Remember this board is at least 50% women.
2. I have not spent (note my ability to conjugate verbs and use proper grammar) my whole life in school. I actually started one company previously, have worked several years in industry and am now in the initial stages of starting another company while still working as a professor. Engineering research in academia is where the products you use -- things like GPS, pacemakers, artificial organs, DNA sequencing and numerous others -- are born. I'm a professional inventor and I work as a professor because that is where research is done now. Bell Labs and other places where industrial research to create the technologies (and jobs) of tomorrow are dead. If research is done outside of academia these days it's probably at a defense contractor where the benefit will only exist in newer fancier weapons. I and others are one major reason your kids are dying to get into these "elite" schools -- to have a chance to see that process in action.

While I fully agree my experience is not relevant to everyone and are specific to me and my profession, your criticisms are not in any way the reason why. And you should really be ashamed of your sexist assumptions.

1. I am also an engineer but one that broke out from behind the computer and excells with vision, people, transformation. You look back at the past and try to understand I see the future. I figured you were a man due to your terrible mansplaining.
2. Note your lack of social skills and your ability to go back to your nose in a book. Yes, I get it, you invented the Internet. Blah, blah, blah. Take an improv class you are a typical engineer, which is why of the 250 engineers that work for me 7 are allowed to talk to real humans.

You are clueless, read the research done my google about hiring from non elite colleges. You being impressed with yourself has cause you not to see the value in others. It's sad really,but I blame your mom, it's always the moms fault. You don't even get that joke because you lack people skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how I read the research:

1. If you have a choice of a Tier 1 school vs a Tier 2/3 school with merit aid, it does not make sense to go to a Tier 1 school.

2. If you think your life is going to be "better" if you make $186k/yr vs. $135K/yr you have more problems than an elite graduate degree can solve.

I totally agree. At that level of income, $50k is not a deal breaker in the quality of life.

Depends. Elites give excellent merit aid, so for many it may be worth it. Besides, $50k isn't just $50k, it's $50k *a year*, plus interest if you can save it. I'm not good with numbers, but that seems like a lot, over time.

No. Elites give no merit aid to UMC. Also $50K gets you a little bigger house and a better vacation. It is not life altering. People don't save more, they just consume more. So, not happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

What do you expect from a PHD professor, he has spend his whole life in School.

I just hear PHD and I think afraid of the real world, add professor to it and you get afraid to leave school.

1. I am not a "he." Nice stereotype just because I am an engineer. Remember this board is at least 50% women.
2. I have not spent (note my ability to conjugate verbs and use proper grammar) my whole life in school. I actually started one company previously, have worked several years in industry and am now in the initial stages of starting another company while still working as a professor. Engineering research in academia is where the products you use -- things like GPS, pacemakers, artificial organs, DNA sequencing and numerous others -- are born. I'm a professional inventor and I work as a professor because that is where research is done now. Bell Labs and other places where industrial research to create the technologies (and jobs) of tomorrow are dead. If research is done outside of academia these days it's probably at a defense contractor where the benefit will only exist in newer fancier weapons. I and others are one major reason your kids are dying to get into these "elite" schools -- to have a chance to see that process in action.

While I fully agree my experience is not relevant to everyone and are specific to me and my profession, your criticisms are not in any way the reason why. And you should really be ashamed of your sexist assumptions.

1. I am also an engineer but one that broke out from behind the computer and excells with vision, people, transformation. You look back at the past and try to understand I see the future. I figured you were a man due to your terrible mansplaining.
2. Note your lack of social skills and your ability to go back to your nose in a book. Yes, I get it, you invented the Internet. Blah, blah, blah. Take an improv class you are a typical engineer, which is why of the 250 engineers that work for me 7 are allowed to talk to real humans.

You are clueless, read the research done my google about hiring from non elite colleges. You being impressed with yourself has cause you not to see the value in others. It's sad really,but I blame your mom, it's always the moms fault. You don't even get that joke because you lack people skills.

Are you drunk? This post is the most bizarre and incoherent I have read on DCUM of late. And that is saying something!

[Anonymous]

The real tragedy here is that even from the Tier 1 to Tier 1 grad school, people only make on average $185k. If you are working full time, how is that possible? I made that first year out of law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.

Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.

Just my experience if it is interesting.

You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.

People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.

What do you expect from a PHD professor, he has spend his whole life in School.

I just hear PHD and I think afraid of the real world, add professor to it and you get afraid to leave school.

1. I am not a "he." Nice stereotype just because I am an engineer. Remember this board is at least 50% women.
2. I have not spent (note my ability to conjugate verbs and use proper grammar) my whole life in school. I actually started one company previously, have worked several years in industry and am now in the initial stages of starting another company while still working as a professor. Engineering research in academia is where the products you use -- things like GPS, pacemakers, artificial organs, DNA sequencing and numerous others -- are born. I'm a professional inventor and I work as a professor because that is where research is done now. Bell Labs and other places where industrial research to create the technologies (and jobs) of tomorrow are dead. If research is done outside of academia these days it's probably at a defense contractor where the benefit will only exist in newer fancier weapons. I and others are one major reason your kids are dying to get into these "elite" schools -- to have a chance to see that process in action.

While I fully agree my experience is not relevant to everyone and are specific to me and my profession, your criticisms are not in any way the reason why. And you should really be ashamed of your sexist assumptions.

1. I am also an engineer but one that broke out from behind the computer and excells with vision, people, transformation. You look back at the past and try to understand I see the future. I figured you were a man due to your terrible mansplaining.
2. Note your lack of social skills and your ability to go back to your nose in a book. Yes, I get it, you invented the Internet. Blah, blah, blah. Take an improv class you are a typical engineer, which is why of the 250 engineers that work for me 7 are allowed to talk to real humans.

You are clueless, read the research done my google about hiring from non elite colleges. You being impressed with yourself has cause you not to see the value in others. It's sad really,but I blame your mom, it's always the moms fault. You don't even get that joke because you lack people skills.

Are you drunk? This post is the most bizarre and incoherent I have read on DCUM of late. And that is saying something!

+1

I was just about to post the same exact thing. Either drunk or just suffered a serious brain injury? If the latter, please seek medical assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For JDs, only true to the extent that top colleges place much, much better in law schools. For lawyers, the ONLY thing that matters is where one went to law school, period.

This is very, very true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think so much of this depends on your field. I went to strong state U for both undergrad and grad (different schools in different states) and have had a solid career in marketing research. If I'd wanted to go into a big name management consulting firm then, sure, the college brand would probably matter a lot more but I wasn't interested in doing that. I've been in my field for 20 yrs. Nobody cares where I went to school, never comes up. They do care about the firms I've worked at and the clients I've had. My first job out of undergrad was at a now well-known firm and I got it in large part because of the research project I did as my senior capstone at State U.

I hire interns for my firm now and the strongest ones over the past few years have been from big state U's. I've hired a couple from Ivy's and while they are very smart they have been weaker on the interpersonal skills. One, a Penn grad, got all pissy about having to do menial grunt-work stuff that she didn't think she should have to do because she went to Penn (seriously, she said that to me, her supervisor!). I've met plenty of lovely Penn and other Ivy grads and have great friends who went to Ivys, but as a hiring manager I do now come at interviewing Ivy grads with a particular focus on screening for that egotistical attitude. It definitely exists at the "Tier 1" schools to a greater degree than at Big State U.

I work with people from a wide range of schools, both undergrad and grad and I think what you do with the opportunities you have while you are at school matters a lot more than the specific name brand.

There is a school of thought that graduates of "good, but not elite," big state schools actually make better low/mid level employees than grads of elite schools. They are used to being a number, getting work done with minimal personal attention from supervisors and have a lower sense of entitlement.