Aside from UC Berkeley, where else have you been accepted?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
41

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>You said
[quote]
It's quite clear that you don't consider Berkeley a top 10 college, an opinion to which you're perfectly entitled to, but it's only your opinion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think that's what sakky has said at all. He's said, on more than one occasion, that Berkeley is clearly a top ten institution overall. I tend to believe that as well.</p>

<p>However, no matter how one spins it, Cal's undergrad is not performing on the level of its grad programs. It's not getting its students into top grad programs like it probably should, and it is losing in a lot of cross-admit battles.</p>

<p>You cite your case, and I'm very glad for you. But do you really think that the majority of Berkeley grads are doing as well as you are?</p>

42

<p>Yes, absolutely, the majority of the Berkeley grads I know are doing very well, across a pretty wide variety of fields and careers.</p>

<p>As to sakky, most of the compliments s/he gave to Berkeley were of the backhanded variety. From the dozens and dozens of times we've argued on this issue in the last year, one can clearly deduce that s/he doesn't believe that Berkeley is a top 10 undergraduate institution.</p>

<p>Berkeley is saddled with a terrible USNWR undergraduate ranking due to the shift in methodology away from purely academic metrics from the early 80s, when Berkeley was in the top 5. The irony of this is that the quality of the undergraduate education at Berkeley has actually gone up since the 80s, noticeably so. In many ways, this ranking has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, it might be swaying a lot of good candidates away from Berkeley. That is one of the main reasons for my presence on this board.</p>

<p>The study that you refer to is completely flawed, it wasn't actually done to establish the actual ranking, it was done instead to establish a good model for rankings based on cross-preferences. This is according to a recent Harvard Business School graduate who knew one of the authors of the study at Harvard. The main problem is the sample used, which is small and biased. If the authors wanted to actually apply their model and get an actual picture with this approach, they would have taken the extra step to build an unbiased and large sample size.</p>

<p>Beyond this basic flaw though, there is another inherent issue with the approach, the fact that the matrix compares students who have applied to both schools, which in most cases is a pretty small fraction of the applicant pool. consider for example the case of Cal vs Brown. The proportion of Cal applicants who also apply to Brown is very small, and the type of student who apply to both schools is pretty different from the norm. Therefore, you cannot draw broad conclusions about how Cal really compares to Brown based on the matrix. The matrix will do a better job in comparing two schools who share a pretty large proportion of applicants in relation with their total applicant pool, like maybe UCLA and UCSD, or Duke and Rice.</p>

43

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>Berkeley themselves admit that they lose most cross-admit battles with Stanford, and they lose almost every one with Harvard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, absolutely, the majority of the Berkeley grads I know are doing very well, across a pretty wide variety of fields and careers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You damn the NY Times article for bias in the sample, yet you use an absolutely AWFUL sample here...</p>

<p>
[quote]
The irony of this is that the quality of the undergraduate education at Berkeley has actually gone up since the 80s, noticeably so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But has it gone up relative to other schools? That's all that matters.</p>

<p>What I think you're missing here is that we're not "anti-Cal." We just want to be realistic about Cal so we can fix what's wrong.</p>

<p>Oh, and you never did answer why Cal underperforms in grad admissions relative to its peer institutions.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is saddled with a terrible USNWR undergraduate ranking due to the shift in methodology away from purely academic metrics from the early 80s, when Berkeley was in the top 5.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can you provide a link to early 80s USNWR undergrad rankings?</p>

45

<p>Wow, here's a debate going on. USNWR didn't begin university rankings until the late 80s, as I recall. Berkeley was in the top 5 in the early editions because the rankings were based broadly on academic reputation overall, grad and undergrad. You certainly wouldn't consider these rankings legitimate, and I would agree that they were very general and not related to undergrad.</p>

<p>Actually, there is a debate that was going on on another thread here about this issue and Berkeley was ranked #1 on the same basis as the early USNWR mentioned above, by Time Magazine.</p>

<p>Here's a link to a Time article from the mid-80s, that doesn't rank the universities as undergrad institutions but academic institutions overall. I couldn't find the Time article when it proclaimed Berkeley #1 because I don't think it's that relevant to anything and I don't want to spend the time combing the archives. The methodologies of all these surveys did change and hurt Berkeley's reputation overall. Though on the graduate level across the board, folks would have to concede Berkeley is top 3 or 4 broadly speaking, even according to current rankings.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950844,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950844,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And you and I would argue that the methodologies of such studies would not have the same thoroughness of today's rankings, nor perhaps be good indicators about undergrad. But CalX's point about the history of rankings is basically accurate.</p>

46

<p>Ari, I will concede that Berkeley loses most crossadmits to Stanford, but the matrix in question has Berkeley losing 90%+, and losing to Brown by about the same margin. A bit preposterous. </p>

<p>A good (albeit rough) rule of thumb about Berkeley vs Stanford is how prospective candidates perceive the campuses, which are quite different, and reflect their cultural differences and roots. I think certain groups of applicants are more likely to prefer one school over the other. Generally speaking, upper-middle class kids from suburbia (usually white) tend to prefer Stanford over Berkeley. This constituency incidently makes up the majority of the student body at Stanford and other top privates, A lot of those would even prefer top 20 Eastern private schools to Berkeley. Sons of imigrants, more liberal students and/or those who like the campus' urban vibe tend to prefer Berkeley.</p>

<p>As well, there is no doubt that Berkeley undergraduate has improved over the last couple of decades. I am not sure the top private schools have improved that much, if at all, over the same period, their educational experience today is by and large quite similar to the way it was before, most were very well established back then.</p>

<p>PS: I'm pretty busy for the next few days, but I will come back to answer any points later this week.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
Yes, absolutely, the majority of the Berkeley grads I know are doing very well, across a pretty wide variety of fields and careers

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, let's not use anecdotes. Let's look at the facts. We all have the right to our own opinions, but we don't have the right to our own facts.</p>

<p>The fact is, the reported average/median salaries for most majors at Berkeley are, frankly, unimpressive. With the exception of EECS, CS, and to some extent the other engineering disciplines, along with bus-ec, economics, and some of the sciences, the salaries that Berkeley grads are getting are not significantly different from the national average, especially once corrected for cost-of-living (as most Berkeley grads tend to stay in Northern California, which is expensive)</p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm#salary%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm#salary&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For example, consider some of the largest majors on campus. MCB is the largest major on campus. The median MCB grad made 32k in 2005. Would you call that "doing very well"? The 2nd largest major is poli-sci. Median salary of 36k. Is that "doing very well"? </p>

<p>Let's also look at some specific examples. Let's look at some of the jobs that the English grads get (since I've already talked about MCB and poli-sci). I see that one graduate took a job as a barista at Starbucks (basically, the guy behind the counter who makes your coffee). I see a bunch of guys working as retail clerks. I see one guy became head cashier at Barnes and Nobles (hey, at least he was the HEAD cashier). One guy took a job as a lumber puller, a job I had never even heard of until just now, and apparently which involves sorting and lugging pieces of lumber. One person became bar staff (which basically means, waiting tables or serving drinks). </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I invite readers to examine the whole list and judge for themselves whether Berkeley graduates are all "doing very well" Hey, don't get me wrong. I wish they all were doing well. But look at the evidence and draw your own conclusion. The data is all here. I'm not hiding anything. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
From the dozens and dozens of times we've argued on this issue in the last year, one can clearly deduce that s/he doesn't believe that Berkeley is a top 10 undergraduate institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Clearly I don't, simply because I can very quickly name 10 schools that are better for undergrad. Very simple. All 8 Ivies, Stanford, and MIT. That's 10 right there. Then we can get into discussions of whether Caltech is better, or whether some of the elite LAC's are better. </p>

<p>Note, that's not to say that Cal gets blown away. In particular, I think that Cal is fairly close to (but still does not beat) Cornell at the undergraduate level. But the claim that Cal is top 10 for undergrad means that it is clearly better than all of those other schools (and clearly better than Caltech or the LAC's), and that's questionable. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Beyond this basic flaw though, there is another inherent issue with the approach, the fact that the matrix compares students who have applied to both schools, which in most cases is a pretty small fraction of the applicant pool. consider for example the case of Cal vs Brown. The proportion of Cal applicants who also apply to Brown is very small, and the type of student who apply to both schools is pretty different from the norm. Therefore, you cannot draw broad conclusions about how Cal really compares to Brown based on the matrix. The matrix will do a better job in comparing two schools who share a pretty large proportion of applicants in relation with their total applicant pool, like maybe UCLA and UCSD, or Duke and Rice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>CalX, you just made a major mistake. You have just given away the fact that you didn't even bother to read the study or if you did, you didn't understand it. If you did, you would have quickly discovered that the study is FAR MORE than just looking at cross-admit data. In fact, the whole point of the model as delineated on p. 14-18 of the study is to infer revealed preferences - ** in other words, what students would have done ** if they had applied to, and were admitted to both schools of a particular pair. Hence, this is far more than a simple examination of cross-admit data and is, in fact, what makes the article so powerful. </p>

<p>In fact, that's the entire value-add of the article. If the article were simply reporting cross-admit data, then it wouldn't even be a real article, because all it would be doing is regurgitating data. In other words, it would just be a news article as opposed to a scientific article. No, the point of any serious scientific article is to provide * analysis * of the data. News articles report data. But scientific articles analyze data. </p>

<p>Now, one might say that the way that the authors constructed the model is flawed. And certainly no model is perfect. However, the authors are using mainstream techniques, in particular, preference modeling, that have been used by social scientists (especially economists) for decades. Plenty of other social scientists have used similar techniques to model other aspects of human behavior and preference. Now, one might say that revealed preferences as a theory is itself wrong. Yet to say that is to basically invalidate one of the key cornerstones of economics. Heck, much of microeconomic analysis rests on the primary assumption that preferences can be revealed, so that to disbelieve RP as a concept is to basically not believe in much of microeconomics, which would in turn invalidate many other economic theorems that the world holds dear. </p>

<p>But anyway, CalX, the point is, before you make an objection to a study, please READ THE STUDY first. If you don't understand parts of the study, there are several people, including myself, who are happy to help you with it. But if you don't even bother to understand something before you criticize it, I don't know what to tell you. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Ari, I will concede that Berkeley loses most crossadmits to Stanford, but the matrix in question has Berkeley losing 90%+, and losing to Brown by about the same margin. A bit preposterous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, see above. It is not the case that Berkeley loses * cross-admits * to Stanford. Rather, it is that, in a theoretical matchup of Berkeley vs. Stanford, Berkeley loses 90% of the time, and that holds regardless of whether a particular person even applied to either of those schools. </p>

<p>You said it yourself. Most people already 'reveal' part of their preferences by not even applying to certain schools. 90% of Americans are non-Californians. Hence, there is no in-state financial advantage for them to go to Berkeley vs. Stanford. Hence, I think you have to agree that the preferences of Stanford over Berkeley are quite strong if you're not from California. Even within California, despite in-state tuition, Stanford is STILL more preferred. </p>

<p>The same with Brown. Again, most of the population in the US is still in the East Coast. Brown is a very nice school because its curriculum basically lets you do anything you want to do, and get high grades. That's highly desirable to a lot of people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am not sure the top private schools have improved that much, if at all, over the same period, their educational experience today is by and large quite similar to the way it was before, most were very well established back then.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll give you one topical example. MIT is a far far more pleasant place to go for undergrad than it was even 10 years ago. Basically, a psychoogical sea change has happened at MIT where it has largely been decided that MIT should no longer go about 'persecuting' its undergrads. That's why MIT can boast of an overall graduation rate that is substantially higher than Berkeley's, despite the fact that MIT students mostly major in inherently difficult subjects such as engineering or hard sciences. </p>

<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/screen.aspx?screenId=60%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/screen.aspx?screenId=60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>We can also talk about Stanford, which has made the fastest strides in modern history. Let's face it. 50 years ago, Stanford was still a rural backwater impoverished school located in the middle of farmland. Silicon Valley as a concept barely existed back then. Look at Stanford now. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Generally speaking, upper-middle class kids from suburbia (usually white) tend to prefer Stanford over Berkeley. This constituency incidently makes up the majority of the student body at Stanford and other top privates,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would say that if any demographic group would prefer Stanford to Berkeley, it's Asian Americans. After all, as I'm sure we can agree, Asian-Americans tend to be highly highly prestige-conscious. If there is any group of parents who is willing to sacrifice financially to send their child to the most prestigious school possible, no matter the expense, it is Asian-American parents (Jewish parents are probably a close 2nd). </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Who tends to care more about their kids' educations, white parents or Asian-American parents? I don't think that's a close call. </p>

<p>The issue with Asian-Americans is that they often times find it difficult to get admitted to the top privates. But that doesn't mean that they don't want to go. They just can't get in. I would guess that if there is any group of students at Berkeley who would love to transfer to Stanford, it would be the Asians.</p>

49

<p>"Hey, let's not use anecdotes."</p>

<p>I find this ironic.</p>

50

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>Thje problem with Biology or life science majors is that a major employer are academic labs which often pay very little. In fact, the 32k you would receive would be that regardless of what school you went to.</p>

<p>As for industry positions, they range from 30-25 for small and medium companies to 37-42 for large pharmaceuticals. However, the competition for these jobs is fierce due to the fact that there are not enough entry level jobs for the amount of applicants. To compound that, you have 3-4 major biotech/pharma hubs in teh country where life science graduates flock to in search of employment and add to that the volitility of the industry where layoffs are common place due to budgets or a drug not gaining FDA approval. This leads to over qualified candidates taking entry level positions as well. I'm sure Harvard or Yale would have the same statistics of their grads in similiar majors looking for lab positions. However, the difference is that Yale or Harvard grads are more likely to still get into consulting positions or analyst VC positions which are harder to come by for cal grads.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
"Hey, let's not use anecdotes."</p>

<p>I find this ironic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I should have said is 'let's not use anecdotes when more extensive data is available'. Anecdotes are better than nothing. But data is better than anecdotes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Thje problem with Biology or life science majors is that a major employer are academic labs which often pay very little. In fact, the 32k you would receive would be that regardless of what school you went to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's exactly right, but it simply reinforces the idea that Berkeley doesn't seem to be giving you much of an advantage. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for industry positions, they range from 30-25 for small and medium companies to 37-42 for large pharmaceuticals. However, the competition for these jobs is fierce due to the fact that there are not enough entry level jobs for the amount of applicants. To compound that, you have 3-4 major biotech/pharma hubs in teh country where life science graduates flock to in search of employment and add to that the volitility of the industry where layoffs are common place due to budgets or a drug not gaining FDA approval. This leads to over qualified candidates taking entry level positions as well. I'm sure Harvard or Yale would have the same statistics of their grads in similiar majors looking for lab positions. However, the difference is that Yale or Harvard grads are more likely to still get into consulting positions or analyst VC positions which are harder to come by for cal grads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't have comparative data for Yale or Harvard readily available. But I can compare it to Princeton, as that data is available. As established before, Berkeley MCB grads in 2005 earned a median salary of 32k, an average salary of 33.6k. In that same year, Princeton molecular biology grads earned an average of 38.75k. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MCB.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MCB.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But forget about life sciences. Pick some of the other liberal arts. Check out what jobs people get, and for what pay. Would you say that everybody is 'doing very well'? </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

52

<p>
[quote]
The study that you refer to is completely flawed, it wasn't actually done to establish the actual ranking, it was done instead to establish a good model for rankings based on cross-preferences. This is according to a recent Harvard Business School graduate who knew one of the authors of the study at Harvard. The main problem is the sample used, which is small and biased. If the authors wanted to actually apply their model and get an actual picture with this approach, they would have taken the extra step to build an unbiased and large sample size.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The authors have acknowledged that their data sample size is incomplete could be larger. But having a study based on incomplete data is better than having no study at all. </p>

<p>But there is a major danger of using 'complete' data. Let's face it. A lot of college students don't know or care very much about their education and just 'prefer' whatever happens to be a 'cool' faddish school. For example, I am quite sure that there are plenty of students who "prefer" to go to Arizona State just because it happens to be the #1 party school according to Playboy Magazine.</p>

<p>The more 'complete' your particular data set is, the more your data is going to be affected by pop culture and temporary fads. For example, if we were to run a 'complete' model to determine who Americans think is the most important woman in history is, I am quite certain that some of the highly ranked responses would include 'Britney Spears' and 'Paris Hilton'.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
I don't have comparative data for Yale or Harvard readily available. But I can compare it to Princeton, as that data is available. As established before, Berkeley MCB grads in 2005 earned a median salary of 32k, an average salary of 33.6k. In that same year, Princeton molecular biology grads earned an average of 38.75k.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess this comparison is incomplete since it depends on what types of careers one goes after industry vs. academics and other lucrative options. Also, the west coast naturally for science positions pays less due to the sunshine tax.</p>

54

<p>**** I wrote are really long reply but somehow it didn't post. I'm not about to write it again.</p>

<p>Basically the gist was:
You guys are pretentious and make me a little bit sad. Don't blame your lack of material success on your undergrad education, because that's plain old ********. Cal is a good school, but like any institution, it's what you make of it. None of this stuff matters.
Oh, and I know plenty of people who would gladly take four years in the East Bay over four years in Shallow Alto or the East Coast.</p>

55

<p>strawberryfields,</p>

<p>We're not "blaming" Cal. But you have to look at trends and wonder if maybe there's something going on there.</p>

<p>Of course, one thing thing that sakky has not addressed is the possibility of endogenaity in the variables... but that gets into an entirely different debate.</p>

56

<p>amen strawberry; Berkeley's a great place to learn and grow, you just can't be shy or keep yourself shut up, you gotta go out and find things you dig, and do 'em.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Oh, and I know plenty of people who would gladly take four years in the East Bay over four years in Shallow Alto or the East Coast.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I also know plenty of people for whom the reverse is true. So what's your point? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Basically the gist was:
You guys are pretentious and make me a little bit sad. Don't blame your lack of material success on your undergrad education, because that's plain old ********. Cal is a good school, but like any institution, it's what you make of it. None of this stuff matters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If none of this stuff matters, then why bother trying to get into any good school at all? Why not just go to a community college, followed by a no-name Cal State? After all, if none of it matters anyway, then why bother working hard in high school so that you can get into a good college?</p>

58

<ol>
<li><p>My point is that prestige, especially that designated by a somewhat arbitary ranking system, is not the only factor in selecting the college that is right for the individual person. Location, for example, plays a huge roll. In my opinion, I think location is a much greater deciding factor than rank. You may disagree, but I have trouble seeing the point in spending four years unhappy in a city you dislike for purely superficial reasons.</p></li>
<li><p>When did I ever bash community college or state schools? I know plenty of very smart people who attend schools like that, and plenty of people who have done very well in life with a degree from a state school, and plenty of people who are very happy despite the fact that they did not work hard in high school. (I know, doing well in high school really does seem like the be-all end-all, doesn't it?). I will admit that a four year degree is very valuable in the professional world, and I'm not going to lie to you and say that I don't want to be financially comfortable when I'm older. And yes, to a certain extent it does matter where that degree is from but you guys really seem to be blowing it out of proportion.</p></li>
</ol>

59

<p>strawberryfields,</p>

<p>I think it's because a lot of us have experienced the job market and know just how rough it can be even with a top 25 degree.</p>

<p>Why not try to hedge your bets as much as you can?</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
My point is that prestige, especially that designated by a somewhat arbitary ranking system, is not the only factor in selecting the college that is right for the individual person. Location, for example, plays a huge roll. In my opinion, I think location is a much greater deciding factor than rank. You may disagree, but I have trouble seeing the point in spending four years unhappy in a city you dislike for purely superficial reasons.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I don't believe I, or anybody else on this thread, ever said that prestige was the 'only' factor at play. </p>

<p>But since you bring unhappiness into the equation, let me tell you, I know a LOT of very unhappy Berkeley students. For example, consider all those engineering students who flunk out. I know many. Believe me, they are VERY unhappy. You work like a dog, and STILL flunk out and so now you have to go back and tell your family that you've been expelled. That's a very rough conversation to have. Everybody in your family thinks you're either lazy or stupid. </p>

<p>Heck, even if you don't flunk out, what if you're just barely making it? Trust me, there are a LOT of Berkeley engineering students out there that are just barely making it, i.e. scraping by with a GPA of 2.5 or less. That's also a rough life, because you basically spend all of your undergrad years not even knowing if you're going to graduate (because you need a 2.0 to graduate). I know a guy who BARELY made it, so much so that up until his final semester, he still wasn't sure if he was going to graduate. If just a few of his grades in his final semester were different, he would not have graduated, because he would have barely missed a 2.0. But that's gotta be psychological hell. Imagine spending 4 years at Berkeley and STILL not knowing if you'll graduate. That's gotta make you pretty unhappy. </p>

<p>I would also dispute the notion that prestige is 'purely superficial'. This is not simply a case of buying Armani just because Armani looks good. College prestige has rational utility in the job market, because it signals quality. A lot of recruiters will therefore only recruit at certain schools. For example, many top private equity firms and hedge funds recruit only at Harvard, and to some extent Wharton. Many top venture capital firms recruit only at Stanford. Granted, if you don't care about working for firms like that, then it doesn't matter to you. But a lot of people do care. They might not get it, but at least they want a shot. </p>

<p>
[quote]
When did I ever bash community college or state schools? I know plenty of very smart people who attend schools like that, and plenty of people who have done very well in life with a degree from a state school, and plenty of people who are very happy despite the fact that they did not work hard in high school. (I know, doing well in high school really does seem like the be-all end-all, doesn't it?). I will admit that a four year degree is very valuable in the professional world, and I'm not going to lie to you and say that I don't want to be financially comfortable when I'm older. And yes, to a certain extent it does matter where that degree is from but you guys really seem to be blowing it out of proportion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's all about what you want out of life. I too know plenty of people who are perfectly happy with just a modest, simple life. </p>

<p>But like UCLAri said, in this world, if you want more than just a simple life, why wouldn't you want to hedge your bets in the job market in every way that you can? Like one woman I read about who got her MBA from Harvard Business School said, her credentials give her instant professional credibility. She was able to take many years off of work to have children and raise them, yet when she wanted to return to the workforce, her degree allowed her to get an excellent job and restart her career without delay. Most other people can't just drop out of the workforce for several years and then restart their career without a hitch. But she could, because her degree lets her. It's not fair that she got extra chances that others didn't, but hey, what can I say, life's not fair. Since life is not fair, you want to be able to tip the scales so that you are the one who is getting the extra chances.</p>