Degrees where college prestige matters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will play:

Nursing-absolutely not, same salaries for Ivy or CC trained nurses, same options for NP/PA school(many which are online).

Lawyers--seems this one is the most important to land high paying jobs, though still think being connected(through family or friends) and good social skills come a long way

Medicine-absolutely not, MD/DO the same, i guess if you are a cash pay derm/psych r plastic surgeon and Ivy will get you more customers but charisma. how you do your work and patient referrals do more for you.

Social work--not really-cash pay patients seeing online degree therapists also a thing here, more about your marketing skills than therapy skills.

Disagree about medicine. It does matter- depending on what specialty and where you want to work. Where you go to school can absolutely affect what type of residency you match with (and if you get your first choice) and what institution hires you afterward. Most doctors are not private practice, therefore they are subjected to the hiring process by a panel like other professionals, where they do consider your credentials.

You get into a desired residency based on usmle 2 scores-they got rid of scoring for part 1 due to equity LOL. What really gets you into a good residency is research and being published in selective med journals (this is hard to do when you are volunteering cleaning poop in the hospital so you can get into med school)-which can be done also by foreign trained docs(who didnt have to clean poop in their foreign countries to become docs)-have foreign med school derm friend who went research way to derm residency-making 1mil doing botox and fillers is so cal now....life is good

Large research based hospitals are more likely to hire doctors from more prestigious academic institutions, same with research opportunities while in med school. That doesn’t mean super high salary necessarily.

So…it just depends what you what to do and where you want to practice. You can be a no name state med school graduate and make 800k taking out gall bladders all day as a general surgeon in North Dakota. But maybe you want to make 500k at Hopkins or Duke

As I responded to another post, the list below belies your point.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/medicine/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read a bio of the CEO of T Rowe Price. He went to Towson then got an MBA from Wharton. Despite Wharton being the top business school on Wall Street, he still faced discrimination in finance hiring because of going to Towson.

This just made me laugh. Obviously it didn't hurt him that much.....

+1 Nonsensical example.

People are just weird (re: T Rowe Price CEO). When I was a PSU student a prominent PSU alum who worked on Wall Street came to give a talk to Honors College students. Of course a lot of attendees were interested in how to make it on Wall Street. He told them chances were poor because PSU wasn't a feeder school and he was a rare exception. Completely tone deaf. Not sure why he bothered to give a talk.

According to DCUM, PSU does place kids on Wall Street now. I have no evidence either way but know there were some barriers for my Michigan MBA classmates despite explicit recruiter on-campus presence.

The T Rowe Price guy was honestly a bit lucky to find a big hometown exec job.

[Anonymous]

Since there are some people who seem to understand the law school admissions process on this thread, I have an off-topic question.

My kid took an LSAT practice test, says she did well (I don't know the score) and signed up for the LSAT. It's not even clear she wants to go to law school-- she seems to want bragging rights if she does well.

My question is this. For UG, you can essentially take the SAT a bunch of times and just report your highest score. Is there something similar for the LSAT? (I'm concerned that by taking it on a lark, she may be doing herself a disadvantage if she actually decides she wants law school in the future.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since there are some people who seem to understand the law school admissions process on this thread, I have an off-topic question.

My kid took an LSAT practice test, says she did well (I don't know the score) and signed up for the LSAT. It's not even clear she wants to go to law school-- she seems to want bragging rights if she does well.

My question is this. For UG, you can essentially take the SAT a bunch of times and just report your highest score. Is there something similar for the LSAT? (I'm concerned that by taking it on a lark, she may be doing herself a disadvantage if she actually decides she wants law school in the future.)

Law schools see all scores, so it might be an issue later. However the LSAT is about to eliminate the logic games section- if she’s really good at those, it might make sense to take it now and lock in a good score

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what “speciality” is accessible only to nurses who come from a top school??

Nurse here. NIH research positions. The internal hiring people (NOT the HR staff who determine cert via USAJobs) love Hopkins-trained nurses.

Suburban Hospital— also a Hopkins property— likes Hopkins and Maryland grads. They also discriminate on the basis of age (prefer the under-27 set who is likely to be moving on soon to CRNA anyway)

Georgetown Hospital seems to have more CUA grads than any other undergrad.

This is just not true. Suburban would hire any nurse with a pulse tomorrow. They have 80+ openings.
Hopkins in general has open houses for new grads twice a month. They will take anyone. I work in nursing education. It is an employee market.

I suppose the pandemic led to this situation. I admit my last experience with the hopkins satellites was pre-Covid. Suburban in particular wanted only certification nurses for the ICUs.

I am correct about NIH in the current climate

[Anonymous]

More than two takes on the LSAT is not advised typically. All scores must be reported. If there is a huge leap in scores it will be questioned and if the answer is heavy supports (took a year off to study with a tutor)- that is not a good answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the pp. I’m bored & quickly found the article I just mentioned. It’s called “Catching up is hard to do: undergraduate prestige, elite graduate programs, and the earnings premium” by Joni Hersch. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, fall 2019.

The summary of this paper seems to say it all:

Abstract
A commonly held perception is that an elite graduate degree can “scrub” a less prestigious but less costly undergraduate degree. Using data from the National Survey of College Graduates from 2003 through 2017, this paper examines the relationship between the status of undergraduate degrees and earnings among those with elite post-baccalaureate degrees. Few graduates of nonselective institutions earn post-baccalaureate degrees from elite institutions, and even when they do, undergraduate institutional prestige continues to be positively related to earnings overall as well as among those with specific post-baccalaureate degrees including business, law, medicine, and doctoral. Among those who earn a graduate degree from an elite institution, the present value of the earnings advantage to having both an undergraduate and a graduate degree from an elite institution generally greatly exceeds any likely cost advantage from attending a less prestigious undergraduate institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the pp. I’m bored & quickly found the article I just mentioned. It’s called “Catching up is hard to do: undergraduate prestige, elite graduate programs, and the earnings premium” by Joni Hersch. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, fall 2019.

The summary of this paper seems to say it all:

Abstract
A commonly held perception is that an elite graduate degree can “scrub” a less prestigious but less costly undergraduate degree. Using data from the National Survey of College Graduates from 2003 through 2017, this paper examines the relationship between the status of undergraduate degrees and earnings among those with elite post-baccalaureate degrees. Few graduates of nonselective institutions earn post-baccalaureate degrees from elite institutions, and even when they do, undergraduate institutional prestige continues to be positively related to earnings overall as well as among those with specific post-baccalaureate degrees including business, law, medicine, and doctoral. Among those who earn a graduate degree from an elite institution, the present value of the earnings advantage to having both an undergraduate and a graduate degree from an elite institution generally greatly exceeds any likely cost advantage from attending a less prestigious undergraduate institution.

As others have said, correlation and causation are not the same thing. Those who attend an elite undergrad and elite grad school earn more because of who they are, not because of where they went to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if your kid has to major in the humanities - classics, literature, history, sociology - try to go to an ivy. The degree with will be likely useless, by the name of the ivy on his/her resume will not.

I still do regret studying literature, but because I did it at Yale and Harvard (BA through PhD), I managed to make the transition from academia pretty painlessly. It shocked me how much the name impressed potential employers even though I felt woefully unqualified in terms of experience. People just assumed that I was smart enough to pick up new skills and fields of knowledge very quickly.

In the 30 years I've been working (half the time for a very well known tech company), I have learned that not every smart person can do any job. People, no matter how smart they are, are not plug and play where they can pickup new skills that quickly.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, even ivy grads.

A lit. major from an ivy has a better chance of moving up and running a tech company than a code monkey. The latter are a dime a dozen from 3rd world countries. To move up, you need to be able to communicate. Can a code monkey write like a novelist? That's golden in management.

lol you definitely don't work in tech.

No one in upper management at tech companies need to write like a novelist, nor do they have degrees in literature. That's hysterical.

Most have either tech degrees or MBAs or some other business type background. There are those who have things like linguistics backgrounds for speech software, but high level tech people don't have literature degrees.

You missed the point. They need to communicate. If they can write, they will go far.

Sure, but there are no lit majors in top positions at tech companies. People who go far up the ladder have more than just the ability to write well.

The vast majority of lit majors make far less than a "code monkey".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For CS and related majors it matters more again (almost like the mid-2000s when today's parents were getting degrees). There are fewer entry level roles at the best employers, so there is more competition. For a while, people were thinking they should just go to the least expensive school and strategically pick a CS/eng major, but times are a changing in the tech and quant worlds.

disagree.

Google used to hire only from certain schools. They stopped doing that a decade or so ago because they realized that they were missing out on talent. They even removed the degree requirement for software programmers.

The CS job landscape is changing, but it's not requiring prestigious degrees to land a job.

-former Googler

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the pp. I’m bored & quickly found the article I just mentioned. It’s called “Catching up is hard to do: undergraduate prestige, elite graduate programs, and the earnings premium” by Joni Hersch. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, fall 2019.

The summary of this paper seems to say it all:

Abstract
A commonly held perception is that an elite graduate degree can “scrub” a less prestigious but less costly undergraduate degree. Using data from the National Survey of College Graduates from 2003 through 2017, this paper examines the relationship between the status of undergraduate degrees and earnings among those with elite post-baccalaureate degrees. Few graduates of nonselective institutions earn post-baccalaureate degrees from elite institutions, and even when they do, undergraduate institutional prestige continues to be positively related to earnings overall as well as among those with specific post-baccalaureate degrees including business, law, medicine, and doctoral. Among those who earn a graduate degree from an elite institution, the present value of the earnings advantage to having both an undergraduate and a graduate degree from an elite institution generally greatly exceeds any likely cost advantage from attending a less prestigious undergraduate institution.

As others have said, correlation and causation are not the same thing. Those who attend an elite undergrad and elite grad school earn more because of who they are, not because of where they went to college.

You continue to spew that same argument...but you don't ever cite any 3rd party work that supports your "correlation and causation" argument.

Please, show us the study/analysis. The study mentioned above is extensive...perhaps you should read the entire study and decide if it supports your position or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what “speciality” is accessible only to nurses who come from a top school??

Nurse here. NIH research positions. The internal hiring people (NOT the HR staff who determine cert via USAJobs) love Hopkins-trained nurses.

Suburban Hospital— also a Hopkins property— likes Hopkins and Maryland grads. They also discriminate on the basis of age (prefer the under-27 set who is likely to be moving on soon to CRNA anyway)

Georgetown Hospital seems to have more CUA grads than any other undergrad.

NIH - lots of UMd grads, JMU and GMU nurses. Hopkins are a rarity, TBH.

Georgetown - GMU, CUA, Georgetown, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if your kid has to major in the humanities - classics, literature, history, sociology - try to go to an ivy. The degree with will be likely useless, by the name of the ivy on his/her resume will not.

I still do regret studying literature, but because I did it at Yale and Harvard (BA through PhD), I managed to make the transition from academia pretty painlessly. It shocked me how much the name impressed potential employers even though I felt woefully unqualified in terms of experience. People just assumed that I was smart enough to pick up new skills and fields of knowledge very quickly.

In the 30 years I've been working (half the time for a very well known tech company), I have learned that not every smart person can do any job. People, no matter how smart they are, are not plug and play where they can pickup new skills that quickly.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, even ivy grads.

A lit. major from an ivy has a better chance of moving up and running a tech company than a code monkey. The latter are a dime a dozen from 3rd world countries. To move up, you need to be able to communicate. Can a code monkey write like a novelist? That's golden in management.

lol you definitely don't work in tech.

No one in upper management at tech companies need to write like a novelist, nor do they have degrees in literature. That's hysterical.

Most have either tech degrees or MBAs or some other business type background. There are those who have things like linguistics backgrounds for speech software, but high level tech people don't have literature degrees.

You missed the point. They need to communicate. If they can write, they will go far.

Sure, but there are no lit majors in top positions at tech companies. People who go far up the ladder have more than just the ability to write well.

The vast majority of lit majors make far less than a "code monkey".

seriously. And the term that poster users - 'code monkey' - says it all. What a dou#$@

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if your kid has to major in the humanities - classics, literature, history, sociology - try to go to an ivy. The degree with will be likely useless, by the name of the ivy on his/her resume will not.

I still do regret studying literature, but because I did it at Yale and Harvard (BA through PhD), I managed to make the transition from academia pretty painlessly. It shocked me how much the name impressed potential employers even though I felt woefully unqualified in terms of experience. People just assumed that I was smart enough to pick up new skills and fields of knowledge very quickly.

In the 30 years I've been working (half the time for a very well known tech company), I have learned that not every smart person can do any job. People, no matter how smart they are, are not plug and play where they can pickup new skills that quickly.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, even ivy grads.

A lit. major from an ivy has a better chance of moving up and running a tech company than a code monkey. The latter are a dime a dozen from 3rd world countries. To move up, you need to be able to communicate. Can a code monkey write like a novelist? That's golden in management.

lol you definitely don't work in tech.

No one in upper management at tech companies need to write like a novelist, nor do they have degrees in literature. That's hysterical.

Most have either tech degrees or MBAs or some other business type background. There are those who have things like linguistics backgrounds for speech software, but high level tech people don't have literature degrees.

You missed the point. They need to communicate. If they can write, they will go far.

Sure, but there are no lit majors in top positions at tech companies. People who go far up the ladder have more than just the ability to write well.

The vast majority of lit majors make far less than a "code monkey".

seriously. And the term that poster users - 'code monkey' - says it all. What a dou#$@

Can you imagine that person being your manager? ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if your kid has to major in the humanities - classics, literature, history, sociology - try to go to an ivy. The degree with will be likely useless, by the name of the ivy on his/her resume will not.

I still do regret studying literature, but because I did it at Yale and Harvard (BA through PhD), I managed to make the transition from academia pretty painlessly. It shocked me how much the name impressed potential employers even though I felt woefully unqualified in terms of experience. People just assumed that I was smart enough to pick up new skills and fields of knowledge very quickly.

In the 30 years I've been working (half the time for a very well known tech company), I have learned that not every smart person can do any job. People, no matter how smart they are, are not plug and play where they can pickup new skills that quickly.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, even ivy grads.

A lit. major from an ivy has a better chance of moving up and running a tech company than a code monkey. The latter are a dime a dozen from 3rd world countries. To move up, you need to be able to communicate. Can a code monkey write like a novelist? That's golden in management.

lol you definitely don't work in tech.

No one in upper management at tech companies need to write like a novelist, nor do they have degrees in literature. That's hysterical.

Most have either tech degrees or MBAs or some other business type background. There are those who have things like linguistics backgrounds for speech software, but high level tech people don't have literature degrees.

You missed the point. They need to communicate. If they can write, they will go far.

Sure, but there are no lit majors in top positions at tech companies. People who go far up the ladder have more than just the ability to write well.

The vast majority of lit majors make far less than a "code monkey".

seriously. And the term that poster users - 'code monkey' - says it all. What a dou#$@

Can you imagine that person being your manager? ....

No...unless you too are looking to get a job at Starbucks as a Barista in training.