Those of us who didn’t graduate from an Ivy or ‘most selective’ college can’t speak to the quality of education or opportunities an individual receives from graduating from such a school. However, I and my husband graduated from a ‘more selective’ small liberal arts college and most in our peer group are personally fulfilled and professionally successful. Our classmates consist of ceo’s, doctors, dentists, entertainers, lawyers, teachers, successful entrepreneurs and more. These are people who succeeded in the classroom, stayed focused on their goals, and learned to ‘play well with others’. While the prestige of an ivy league education may create an opening for you, it’s what you’re bringing to the party that ultimately matters.
@wec4u : LACs are specifically focused on educating in the classroom so have very strong outcomes and the environment in classroom settings of LACs is more likely to contribute to future success than classrooms at elite research 1 universities. “Everything else” offered by these wealthy institutions in conjunction with the ambition of the student body is responsible for any great outcomes. The various non-academic resources are likely completely dominant at R-1 universities whereas LACs may be more balanced.
Remember the woman who switched from engineering to psychology? She and her partner were trying to program the pop machine to dispense the right item AND the correct change. That requires problem solving skills far far beyond the ability of most students. I can not believe 4 years of this is nothing more than “fill people with specific knowledge that they will then demonstrate on the job”.
You are caricaturing engineering.
https://www.oakland.edu/upload/docs/Clips/2011/111111%20-%20students.pdf
I wouldn’t say that that (to “fill people with specific knowledge that they will then demonstrate on the job”) was a description of any particular field of study, but rather of an educational philosophy that’s very widely held by people commenting on the purpose of higher education—important difference.
This is not necessarily an either-or type of thing. In many fields, someone needs to learn both a foundation level of subject matter material and acquire the ability to continue learning relevant types of subject matter material after finishing formal schooling.
Ability to learn is developed (or not) in elementary school. The college has to prepare you for your next stage in life using YOUR ability to learn. If ability to learn do not match the chosen path, then what happens with such a student is a continuous adjustment until the student finds the path that matches his / her ability to learn. Since the academic gap between American k -12 and the college is great, it is particularly evident in engineering. Many other countries have pre-college programs that actually prepared students for college, ALL students, no matter if college is not even in plans. American k -12 does not insure that anybody whose heart desires to become an engineer, can step into the college engineering program and be successful without any remedial classes. By far not everybody here can do it, It is open only to more determined.
"Who wants to see a StateU doctor when you can see one from Harvard? "
Not medicine, but a Harvard-educated lawyer I know said his clients could care less where he went to school as long as he wins their case. And, FWIW, he said he doesn’t earn any more than the StateU lawyers in his firm.
It’s certainly true in law firms that pay isn’t based on where you went to school. The difference is that the big, high-paying firms do a lot more entry-level hiring from elite law schools than from lower-ranked schools—though the difference isn’t necessarily public/private, as the law schools at UVA, Michigan, and UC Berkeley are universally regarded as among the best. But it’s the law school, not the undergrad degree, that matters.
Line up us all from left to right, starting with the highest salary. Dress Ivy grads white and StateU grads black. What do we see? White to the left and black to the right? No way. It’s a few white dots here or there.
To me, the interesting aspect of the article posted by the OP is how the monetary value of an elite degree contracts as one’s major shifts from humanities and social sciences to STEM. In the Eide study I posted, the monetary value disappeared completely. Why should this be?
This article is suggesting that in STEM, students are competing globally. Since “you’re either right or wrong and there’s very little room for subjectivity”, one must be among the best to survive:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-more-americans-dont-major-in-the-math-and-science/
With this in mind, the battle for a place in an elite makes more and more sense…the students are simply looking out for their own best interest.
There are a lot more good stuff in the article that are touched upon in this thread, particularly the advice Anderson gave his daughter. Are you game to comment, @bernie12?
@Canuckguy : It sounds true to some extent, but it is also assuming that all STEM courses at elite schools focusn on conceptual knowledge and “thinking and applying” such that a “C” means you were unable to think and apply. In the life sciences, this can be far from true (even in chemistry courses). Furthermore, as a person who had many issues going on back at home and did screw up a year of STEM, and every now in then in general, I can tell you that it wasn’t “think and apply” courses that I struggled in. The more rote memorization, the worse I did (partly because I would disengage if that was how the class was being taught), but the more others excelled. In courses that relied much less on this, I generally did well and others good at the other courses started slipping/struggling. It may be because in the life sciences there are many pre-healths that are geared toward learning STEM in a certain way and become comfortable with that. My math scores on SAT could likely have been lower than many of theirs (hint, it was not 700), but it did not seem to effect my performance. Perhaps it would have in more quantitative (like physical sciences), but I don’t know. I can’t say I was at the top of my game throughout college (I am much better now and more focused now for some reason).
Also, as a URM, I have my doubts about the SAT always being predictive in intro. STEM courses. I for example got 5 on AP chem, skipped out and did ochem as a freshman, and performed well with a very difficult instructor, but the course actually had a very high attrition rate (yes among others who I consider better test takers and definitely more “brilliant” than me, if you consider good test taker as brilliant). Test taking on the SAT/ACT may help to predict assuming that the instructors, especially those at the introductory and intermediate level do not focus on acquisition of higher order cognitive skills. Once that comes into play, it appears that the playing field is sort of leveled. At an elite with instructors who do this, even the effect of AP can where off. For example, many who had 4/5 on chemistry or biology admit either a) surprisingly fighting for some sort of A and b) most just ended up getting B grades (sometimes even B-, about the center of the distribution). I always got the feeling that many others who had constantly been patted on the back for being smart and “brilliant” in HS (most people at elite schools) were ultimately thrown into a sense of complacency that could hinder performance or their ability to ever truly think and apply in any sort of STEM course. When that is required and it is in a course with challenging enough content (yes, at Emory, we were I guess “fortunate” to have many STEM instructors for things like evolutionary and organismal biology who demanded higher cognitive complexity, but were very doable for basically everyone due to how relatively easy it was to grasp the content in such courses. It was basically easy to learn at a higher than standard level and still get a high grade. Many pre-healths target these or the more “right or wrong” type of STEM classes) to yield low averages, these sorts of students will likely blame the instructor or question why they just won’t make it easier for them to score better because they are very used to seeing high raw scores and being in complete control of exams they take.
The thing about grading is true, in STEM, if I was disengaged, the grade would show it. I tried to take social sciences instructors who would push me, but I’ll admit there were quite a bit where points would be come out of their “You Know Wheres” regardless of the quality of your work. They seemed clearly aware of how GPA sensitive things like law school are (as many students at Emory, especially in history courses, are pre-law) and it was like these people would ensure no one gets below a B on a single assignment. Needless to say, good like getting the best work out of someone not majoring in the subject who could get an A with a mediocre level of engagement.
I don’t know which one is worse. STEM courses designed to reward those who do surface learning (yes, a class can flat out be designed such that deep learning is a waste of time or ultimately punished by the assessment style), or non-STEM courses that reward low effort in any category.
Takehome message: Do not assume that STEM at elites (even places called “world class”) are all these gems that are far superior to that elsewhere or that A students in all STEM departments at these placements are great at thinking and applying (I can think of schools and several instructors at certain elite schools where their biology courses have the most rote demands ever and where many chemistry courses do not require much application or even anything beyond the most basic plug and chug problems and non-quantitative chemistry courses such as the ochem suite, are basically memorization with minimal problem solving).
Also, while the grading is harsher, definitely do not assume that they do a better job training students to think than other disciplines. I can really only say that courses run in more “traditional” ways are good at instilling some sort of work ethic.
Either way, despite my struggles, I think it prepared me really well for my current MS work (so yes, I’m one of the research chemists) in biophysical/computational chemistry where my research is going quite well. The sorts of classes I took at the upperlevels (most I did well in but I wasn’t perfect, the bad year, 2nd year, was a confidence shock that took a toll) were more like research-based or project based anyway so I learned how to become independent and just accept that I’ll need to struggle through a problem or seek resources to address them. I can’t imagine having to suddenly learn how to script and program for specific problems without having been thrown in the scenarios presented by such classes (where you simply do not know everything and were supposed to guess or figure it out). Practice, google, and fellow colleagues are my friends now haha and they’ve been working to get me in pretty good places in terms of skill-set and success of my projects. Anyone with a decent level of intelligence, a true desire to learn, curiosity, and a willingness to teach themselves things can theoretically be excellent at science. I didn’t need perfect SATs, or an amazing performance at Emory to indicate that I’ve learned stuff. I just needed to be put in situations where I was forced to basically “learn how to learn” without being spoonfed everything. Struggling and not getting something the first time around can do some good. In research I often find myself gaining a new understanding or way of looking at a concept after reading a paper for the 2nd or third time (especially if the technique is new). Also teaches one how to ask “good” questions as opposed to clarification/babying me through reading (seriously, in lecture based and rote based classes in undergraduate, you generally have a reading assignment and the instructor will literally give a lecture exactly at the level of the reading instead of doing something else more interesting with it. I hated that, especially when I put in the effort to read. Why re-read it to me?).
I worry that ACT/SATs are only reliable predictors because most instructors at universities are not particularly going beyond the level required to succeed on those exams. If the classes at the elite school were truly challenging or a different format, even top students will get a run for the money (and at places like H, MIT, Chicago, etc. even in a non-honors STEM major course, they might. Elsewhere, perhaps not). I often like to point out, how the International Chemistry and Biology Olympiad problems (for elite High Schoolers around the world) usually have MUCH more cognitive complexity than introductory STEM courses at most even elite universities in the US. No way a good performance on the SAT math is a sufficient predictor for success on that. You must have some passion for STEM that goes beyond what your test scores reveal or at least a passion for thinking at those levels and a willingness to bring yourself there. Despite the high SATs you see at most of these places, I question how much of the latter we have, so I imagine many instructors just design the assessment types that would correlate well with SAT scores and won’t go much beyond that.
I am trying,@bernie12, to look at it from the perspective of someone from the bottom half of the 1%. I do not have the power to move heaven and earth like those in the top quarter do. How then do I pass my privilege on to the next generation? Since they are unlikely to be able to compete in STEM against the best from around the world, Anderson’s advice to his daughter is exactly what is needed-get into the most elite school possible and take the easiest courses available. (I always suspect holistic admission is invented to facilitate this transmission).
Employers seem to get wise to this game though, as demonstrated by the Eide study I posted. I guess there is still law and business school…but as our world is getting more and more into the quantification of knowledge, even here will not be a safe haven for long.
My understanding is that standardized tests is the best predictor of academic/work place success (r=.5 or higher). Another important component is conscientiousness (at .2 to .4). Remember Hsu and Schombert? Their study at Oregon seems to suggest that SAT scores, by themselves, are not crucial to academic success, unless you are talking about math and physics.
For those who are not good at standardized tests, and are not conscientious, we are getting into what Arum and Roksa are talking about (“Academically Adrift”). I can not see much of a future for them, sad to say.
You appear not to understand that a lot of bottom of the 1%-ers got that way by owning small businesses which they can just pass on and it’s irrelevant whether junior has an elite degree or not as long as he can manage the reins fine (which is certainly plausible without a fancy degree). The skills in doing so are managerial, not technical. Junior can hire the best engineer to design his plant / processes; he has no need to do it himself.
You also seem to overlook that lots of success in the world is due to factors other than sheer smarts - perseverance, creativity, problem solving, communication ability, ability to motivate and work with others, etc. You keep defining academics / intelligence as the “maker or breaker.” It’s a very junior-manager way of thinking.
“guess there is still law and business school…but as our world is getting more and more into the quantification of knowledge, even here will not be a safe haven for long.”
why do you say safe haven? The thrust of your posts seems to be that there are “undeserving” people in the bottom half of the top % who are taking their way through but sooner or later they’ll be “exposed” and the “real” bright people will take their place. You seem to have this odd notion that a lot of people are fakers, employers are too dim to figure this out but you have some superior insight. Guess what - you are really no brighter than anyone else. If a company finds an employee isn’t up to snuff, they try to remediate or they let him go. Problem solved.
"How then do I pass my privilege on to the next generation? Since they are unlikely to be able to compete in STEM against the best from around the world, "
Don’t you ever get tired of STEM uber alles?
@canuckguy “To me, the interesting aspect of the article posted by the OP is how the monetary value of an elite degree contracts as one’s major shifts from humanities and social sciences to STEM. In the Eide study I posted, the monetary value disappeared completely. Why should this be?”
The monetary value of the elite degree is actually highest in STEM. What is higher in Humanities is the incremental value. There are a significant number of 21 year old STEM majors who are graduating from top schools with a STEM degree and getting offers of $100k +. That can happen from other schools too, but happens less frequently.
A Humanities majors at an elite school may still be able to find very good jobs in many fields, but it is likely that the Humanities major from a small directional may find that to be significantly more challenging and is more likely to be unemployed/underemployed. That is the difference the article is pointing out.
I believe that admissions selectivity and academic rigor probably factor into the results and can not be easily separated out from the results of the study. Therefore branding plays a role in the outcome as well.
A school that can attract the most talented, most gifted, best educated and most promising students should achieve outcomes that are superior to schools that choose from less gifted, and less promising.
I don’t say this as a knock on the students. I also think that this goes beyond socioeconomic and secondary schooling opportunities. Branding is a factor because lesser brand schools have a steeper challenge in getting the most impressive students to select them. Also, I’ve seen studies that show that competitive students that were rejected by Ivies achieve comparable results to Ivy League grads 10 years out. My conclusion is that the student plays probably the biggest role in outcomes achieved post graduation. The ability to do that goes beyond gpa. It also goes to social intelligence, network, deep knowledge, career preparation and strategic ability. Simply, You just don’t know what you don’t know.
Canuck- there are a lot of careers which can propel someone with a strong work ethic and strong people skills into the 1%, even without extreme analytical/intellectual skills, and even without an elite degree.
The most generous person in my city (I have no idea who makes what, but when you get the local hospital to name a cancer wing after you, everyone knows how much you donated) is a graduate of a third tier undergrad and a barely third tier law school, and is a highly successful personal injury lawyer. Asbestos, tobacco, takata airbags (those dollars won’t show up for a decade), exposure to lead paint- if someone is maimed or ill or has a child with a congenital ailment, there is someone in line with deep pockets to sue.
Not an intellectual. No STEM. No physics Olympiad.
Terrific at forging relationships. Great with people. Charismatic personality. Incredible empathy. Good with names and faces- can run into an acquaintance (not a friend, but just an acquaintance) at the cash machine and ask how each of the kids is doing- by name, remembers who went to London for a semester and who is dating a kid from Chicago and oh by the way, did you meet your new neighbors, they seem really fun.
There are oodles of successful people in the world and only a small fraction of them got that way via STEM. The rest of them sell real estate, prosecute tobacco companies, own landscaping companies which have contracts with 50 school systems to mow their athletic fields and keep the weeds off the paths.
Is your kid up to the task? I have no idea, I don’t know your kid.
“There are oodles of successful people in the world and only a small fraction of them got that way via STEM. The rest of them sell real estate, prosecute tobacco companies, own landscaping companies which have contracts with 50 school systems to mow their athletic fields and keep the weeds off the paths.”
You know, Canada has the exact same kinds of companies as the US, so this shouldn’t be some grand secret to you, canuckguy. I really don’t get why you think everything is about science and technology. It’s like never stepping out of a science lab to see the sunshine.
A couple extremely successful people on my FB? One runs a t shirt company that makes t shirts for all the major league teams. The only math he needs to know is how to count his millions. Another runs a celebrity marketing agency and negotiates on behalf of clients with household names. Another runs a global PR agency. Another is in private wealth mgt - but she just needs to know how to plug in interest rate assumptions. Another designs clothing and does very well. Another develops luxury off campus housing geared towards students.
It is just so strange how you seem not to acknowledge these kinds of careers exist, people can be extremely successful, and they don’t need to be particularly talented in STEM. They hire people who are good in STEM to do their grunt work.