Anonymous wrote:Canadian here. My McGill undergrad degree cost me $3k/yr in tuition and about $900/m in living expenses--that's in CAD, about 12 years ago. Foreign student tuition is higher, but not anywhere close to US levels. American friends who were in my cohort were paying about $10k/yr in tuition, same living expenses, still in CAD.

I had absolutely zero issues finding a job in the US--my degree is viewed as very prestigious. I also had zero issues getting a (top) Ivy grad degree.

It's a big school, but it really is great. A lot less coddling. Challenging courses, very bright peers (Canada has one of the top public school systems in the world). Montreal is a fantastic city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for the cheap and condescending moralizing -- we will both agree that US students excel there.

What a well-rounded person would do is to look for data to either corroborate or refute my point -- look, I just did it for you:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/03/us_workforce_skills_even_worse_than_we_thought.html

Supposedly better-rounded Americans are worse at Problem-solving, Numeracy AND Literacy than adults in the majority of other industrialized nations.

I read the article. I've seen others over time (pretty much all of the past 20 years or so) and it's always putting down US education. However, in those 20 years, I have not seen any other country produce the amount of business or innovation as the US. Something does not compute. Where's the gap in my understanding?

Fair question.

First I could challenge the premise (over the last 20 years China has certainly created more business and innovation than the US or anyone else) but let's see through that

The real answer to your "gap" is that the US has the largest, most sophisticated and (in the private sector) most meritocrac system to allocate human and financial capital, combined with the right incentives to create and to innovate.

Which is why so many top foreign professionals want to come here (rarely at the undergrad level, often for postgrad and beyond)

What great innovations have come out of China in the past 20 years?

A bunch of social networks... just like the US

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for the cheap and condescending moralizing -- we will both agree that US students excel there.

What a well-rounded person would do is to look for data to either corroborate or refute my point -- look, I just did it for you:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/03/us_workforce_skills_even_worse_than_we_thought.html

Supposedly better-rounded Americans are worse at Problem-solving, Numeracy AND Literacy than adults in the majority of other industrialized nations.

I read the article. I've seen others over time (pretty much all of the past 20 years or so) and it's always putting down US education. However, in those 20 years, I have not seen any other country produce the amount of business or innovation as the US. Something does not compute. Where's the gap in my understanding?

Fair question.

First I could challenge the premise (over the last 20 years China has certainly created more business and innovation than the US or anyone else) but let's see through that

The real answer to your "gap" is that the US has the largest, most sophisticated and (in the private sector) most meritocrac system to allocate human and financial capital, combined with the right incentives to create and to innovate.

Which is why so many top foreign professionals want to come here (rarely at the undergrad level, often for postgrad and beyond)

What great innovations have come out of China in the past 20 years?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for the cheap and condescending moralizing -- we will both agree that US students excel there.

What a well-rounded person would do is to look for data to either corroborate or refute my point -- look, I just did it for you:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/03/us_workforce_skills_even_worse_than_we_thought.html

Supposedly better-rounded Americans are worse at Problem-solving, Numeracy AND Literacy than adults in the majority of other industrialized nations.

I read the article. I've seen others over time (pretty much all of the past 20 years or so) and it's always putting down US education. However, in those 20 years, I have not seen any other country produce the amount of business or innovation as the US. Something does not compute. Where's the gap in my understanding?

Fair question.

First I could challenge the premise (over the last 20 years China has certainly created more business and innovation than the US or anyone else) but let's see through that

The real answer to your "gap" is that the US has the largest, most sophisticated and (in the private sector) most meritocrac system to allocate human and financial capital, combined with the right incentives to create and to innovate.

Which is why so many top foreign professionals want to come here (rarely at the undergrad level, often for postgrad and beyond)

Anonymous wrote:I went to UBC. British Columbia is a fantastic place to live and the education is excellent and affordable.

Toronto is full of douchebags and I wouldn't go to U of T if it was free.

- a Canadian

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My brother never came back (and at this point, who could blame him .

This is one of the main advantages IMO of getting a degree in CA or UK. Options.

I'm not so sure most US employers have a favorable view of UK and CA universities. There seems to be this huge stigma in the US against foreign universities. I've known several people who went to college in Europe and South America. One person was able to get into a very good MBA program, but the others basically started over. But these schools were not at the level of Oxford or McGill. And Canada isnt all that great. The weather sucks, legal system is a nightmare, health care has major issues, but it's great if you love playing hockey!

Curious- in what way is the legal system a nightmare?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well rounded education is good to a point, that point being HS, or in the case of some European countries, at 15. Beyond that, it's not necessary, hence the much lauded German model of split tracks (vocational vs college) starting at 16. Similar in the UK.

If you are a STEM major but like history and art, you can always take electives, and vice versa.

As our economy gets more specialized, we need more specialists, not generalists like we did in the 20th century. I'm not saying we don't need ANY such folks, but we certainly don't need as many as we used to.

That puts the "Higher Ed Bidness" in a quandry. The easiest way for them to make money is to keep the kids stay as long as possible. That has worked well in the US. As another pp pointed out, the kids need to get a MS to be on par with their European peers when it comes to depth. Why miss out on that?

I don't really get the need for "well roundedness" for everyone. A lot of tech companies are run by Indians (Google, Microsoft and Adobe to name a few). There are 1000's of them at the C-level and below in Silicon valley. Most were educated in India where the focus is NOT on well roundedness. How are they able to do what's supposedly a skillset they were not taught? So, in most cases, you either have it or you don't.

I'm also sure that most kids if given the opportunity to graduate in 3 years will focus only on the core courses and skip all the fluff. "Fluff" may be Calculus for a Exercise Therapy major and Psychology for an electrical eng major.

This is what so many people are not getting. Hiring managers looking at your kids' education will more and more frequently have foreign degrees themselves and very different levesl of expectations re: technical skill set and "roundness" than more traditional employers.

Yeah, I hire for a large tech company and we don't care how well you can analyze French literature. When we're hiring engineers, we care about your technical skills. Period.

Well-roundedness is a concept Americans like to tell themselves as they pay $300K for Larla's philosophy degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well rounded education is good to a point, that point being HS, or in the case of some European countries, at 15. Beyond that, it's not necessary, hence the much lauded German model of split tracks (vocational vs college) starting at 16. Similar in the UK.

If you are a STEM major but like history and art, you can always take electives, and vice versa.

As our economy gets more specialized, we need more specialists, not generalists like we did in the 20th century. I'm not saying we don't need ANY such folks, but we certainly don't need as many as we used to.

That puts the "Higher Ed Bidness" in a quandry. The easiest way for them to make money is to keep the kids stay as long as possible. That has worked well in the US. As another pp pointed out, the kids need to get a MS to be on par with their European peers when it comes to depth. Why miss out on that?

I don't really get the need for "well roundedness" for everyone. A lot of tech companies are run by Indians (Google, Microsoft and Adobe to name a few). There are 1000's of them at the C-level and below in Silicon valley. Most were educated in India where the focus is NOT on well roundedness. How are they able to do what's supposedly a skillset they were not taught? So, in most cases, you either have it or you don't.

I'm also sure that most kids if given the opportunity to graduate in 3 years will focus only on the core courses and skip all the fluff. "Fluff" may be Calculus for a Exercise Therapy major and Psychology for an electrical eng major.

This is what so many people are not getting. Hiring managers looking at your kids' education will more and more frequently have foreign degrees themselves and very different levesl of expectations re: technical skill set and "roundness" than more traditional employers.

Anonymous wrote:Canadian here. My McGill undergrad degree cost me $3k/yr in tuition and about $900/m in living expenses--that's in CAD, about 12 years ago. Foreign student tuition is higher, but not anywhere close to US levels. American friends who were in my cohort were paying about $10k/yr in tuition, same living expenses, still in CAD.

I had absolutely zero issues finding a job in the US--my degree is viewed as very prestigious. I also had zero issues getting a (top) Ivy grad degree.

It's a big school, but it really is great. A lot less coddling. Challenging courses, very bright peers (Canada has one of the top public school systems in the world). Montreal is a fantastic city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well rounded education is good to a point, that point being HS, or in the case of some European countries, at 15. Beyond that, it's not necessary, hence the much lauded German model of split tracks (vocational vs college) starting at 16. Similar in the UK.

If you are a STEM major but like history and art, you can always take electives, and vice versa.

As our economy gets more specialized, we need more specialists, not generalists like we did in the 20th century. I'm not saying we don't need ANY such folks, but we certainly don't need as many as we used to.

That puts the "Higher Ed Bidness" in a quandry. The easiest way for them to make money is to keep the kids stay as long as possible. That has worked well in the US. As another pp pointed out, the kids need to get a MS to be on par with their European peers when it comes to depth. Why miss out on that?

I don't really get the need for "well roundedness" for everyone. A lot of tech companies are run by Indians (Google, Microsoft and Adobe to name a few). There are 1000's of them at the C-level and below in Silicon valley. Most were educated in India where the focus is NOT on well roundedness. How are they able to do what's supposedly a skillset they were not taught? So, in most cases, you either have it or you don't.

I'm also sure that most kids if given the opportunity to graduate in 3 years will focus only on the core courses and skip all the fluff. "Fluff" may be Calculus for a Exercise Therapy major and Psychology for an electrical eng major.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you for the cheap and condescending moralizing -- we will both agree that US students excel there.

What a well-rounded person would do is to look for data to either corroborate or refute my point -- look, I just did it for you:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2016/03/us_workforce_skills_even_worse_than_we_thought.html

Supposedly better-rounded Americans are worse at Problem-solving, Numeracy AND Literacy than adults in the majority of other industrialized nations.

I read the article. I've seen others over time (pretty much all of the past 20 years or so) and it's always putting down US education. However, in those 20 years, I have not seen any other country produce the amount of business or innovation as the US. Something does not compute. Where's the gap in my understanding?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My brother never came back (and at this point, who could blame him .

This is one of the main advantages IMO of getting a degree in CA or UK. Options.

I'm not so sure most US employers have a favorable view of UK and CA universities. There seems to be this huge stigma in the US against foreign universities. I've known several people who went to college in Europe and South America. One person was able to get into a very good MBA program, but the others basically started over. But these schools were not at the level of Oxford or McGill. And Canada isnt all that great. The weather sucks, legal system is a nightmare, health care has major issues, but it's great if you love playing hockey!