<p>Actually no, I met 2 people this summer, one a Princetonian and one from Dartmouth, who are 6 years out and going so strong they're no pausing for an MBA now. Both are now millionaires at 29.</p>
<p>From what I've gathered though, that's more an exception rather than the rule. Another common misconception here seems to be that an undergrad business degree (which obviously doesn't apply to your anecdote, but still) replaces an MBA, when in reality most will need an MBA to advance, be it in i-banking or pretty much any business-related field.</p>
<p>Biting my tongue really hard not to mirror what you said to me about confusing people. That wouldn't be very nice. :)</p>
<p>Suze, those people are by far an exceptional minority. Almost every analyst position in i-banking is a two-year role, after which analysts are expected to get an MBA and continue at an associate level. A few top-performing analysts are offered the position for a third year and then are promoted to associate right away. However, one's undergrad degree has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one will get on the fast track like that. Those kind of non-MBA promotions are based solely on performance.</p>
<p>My opinion, for what it's worth: Elite universities (though I will lump in any higher admission standards schools) benefit would indeed be the higher-caliber peer group. I think that greatly impacts students at formative early-adulthood. Not that everyone at the school will have high moral standards, but at least the general basic intellectual level is higher. On the downside, if the "elite" university has large-enrollment intro courses and TA's doing a lot of the teaching (though this is found at many large state universities as well), you wouldn't get the benefit of the terrific professors until your junior or senior years, and probably not much personal attention (perhaps easy to fall through the cracks, unless you're a focused, determined 18 year old). Small elite schools (some of the LAC's?)would be the obvious exception. So... there are many variables that make up a wonderful education. I suppose that's why there are many excellent choices in education.</p>
<p>I really think college is what you make of it....</p>
<p>There is no clear answer to this question. There are high achievers, who would excel in a state school and continue onto a prestigeous graduate school. There are many examples of kids who want to go into medicine for instance and if they can get FREE undergraduate degree from UVM, knowing that they still have years of schooling and payments ahead of them, UVM (or public schools like that) is the right choice. There are however students (such as my daughter), who are "marginally" motivated. By that I mean that they still have good enough grades/GPAs/SATs to get accepted to a top-50 school, but who also are involved in other activities and/or work to support their expensive habits (car). Those students would definitely do better in a elite college because the vast majority of students there are focused and well structured; they also mature faster, have clear goals earlier in life and therefore, set a good example for the less motivated ones.</p>
<p>I think it's more important that you are happy with the school and how you are going to be educated. I just graduated high school with 9 AP classes and so I'm not interested in a lot of liberal arts education. I've already done that. I'm ready to focus on my interest-Biological Sciences. That is why I'm off to Oxford in October. If anyone is impressed with my Oxford degree, well OK then. But, I'm interested in getting right down to it with one-on-ones with the profs. I WANT to study only Bio for three years. I can't think of any other school in the world that would be a better fit for me. If the school you choose is right for you and you put the work in...when it comes time, you'll find a good employer. Well, most of the time!</p>
<p>Boshie wrote, "I just graduated high school with 9 AP classes and so I'm not interested in a lot of liberal arts education. I've already done that."</p>
<p>Arrogent puppy. Nine HIGH SCHOOL AP courses do not constiture a liberal arts education. A traditional liberal arts education requires every graduate, regardless of major, to master at least the rudiments of all the major areas of knowledge. That means humanities majors are expected to develop at least a working knowledge of higher order math, chemistry, physics, biology, information technology, engineering, and geology/environment. And engineering, hard science, and math majors are required to develop working knowledge of English composition and literature, history, economics, psychology, political science, human geography/cultural anthropology, a foreign language, etc. </p>
<p>The goal of a traditional liberal arts curriculum is to provide each graduate a full set of analytical and problem solving systems ... linguistic, scientific, psychological, mathematical, historical, engineering, anthropological, topographical, environmental, etc., ... so that when confronted with a unique and unanticipated situation they will be able to synthesize an appropriate response.</p>
<p>I applaude your focus on biological sciences, but please do not pretend to be a liberally educated person.</p>
<p>I am sorry that it appeared that I was being arrogant. It was not my intention. I was merely using the AP as an example to explain why I was ready to focus on my major. Those AP classes are not the only college level work that I have done. I have also had course work in all of the disciplines you have mentioned from a local university and, most universities that accepted me were giving me Junior Standing. Only the Ivys were expecting me to complete three years. I did apply to 9 universities/colleges looking for the right fit for me with Oxford being the one. Its ironic that you mention arrogant one of my teacher recommendations stated that for all my intelligence, I was not arrogant as so many tend to be. I am just a gentle young woman with a passion for the sciences. Research in gene therapy is my goal.</p>
<p>Boshi,</p>
<p>Ironic that all of these top colleges are supposedly looking for passionate, rather than well rounded students and then want to give them a well rounded, rather than focused education. Bravo for you to finding and following your passion!</p>
<p>Thanks for understanding my situation, Audiophile. Wish me luck in kicking out some contribution to the world's health issues. I'm planning to "stay the course" until I do.</p>
<p>Audiophile wrote, "Ironic that all of these top colleges are supposedly looking for passionate, rather than well rounded students and then want to give them a well rounded, rather than focused education. Bravo for you to finding and following your passion!"</p>
<p>I have nothing against focused education ... except that it should not be mistaken for a "liberal education" as that traditionally has been understood. Extremely focused undergraduate education is high level vocational education. Conversely, the traditional idea of a liberal education is to learn something of the sciences, math, philosophy, literature, history, etc., as an undergraduate, begin to focus through an undergraduate major, and then to focus progressively more narrowly as a graduate student. In truth, this pattern has traditionally been followed by a minority of generally privileged students, but that does not negate the value of the ideal. </p>
<p>Audiophile, I believe there is a risk from excessive focus throughout the college and graduate years. It can turn out monodimensional people who have great skill and knowledge within their specialty, but have limited background and capacity to make informed decisions on many of the issues our society faces outside that specialty. In today's world, scientists need to know some philosophy and history; lawyers need to know some science; etc.</p>
<p>The elite colleges that are looking for passionate students who excel in some one area want to make sure their graduates have the broad exposure to ideas that will allow them not only to become leaders within their chosen vocations, but also to become leaders in our overall society. Their track records are pretty good. Over the last century, three presidents graduated from Harvard and three from Yale. Princeton, Stanford, West Point, Navy, Amherst, Georgetown, and Michigan each produced one president. The five other presidents of the last century attended Southwest Texas State, Whittier College, Eureka College, and Ohio Central College; the fifth did not attend college. I'm sure you would find similar lopsided skews at the top of most areas of American society.</p>
<p>Finally, very few seventeen year olds have enough experience to make an informed decision on an undergraduate major, let alone a lifetime intellectual focus. That "ignorance" is what the first few years of a liberal education are supposed to help remedy. </p>
<p>This discussion does not really apply to the preternaturally precocious Boshi, who seems to have already covered much of the material normally found in the first two years of a liberal arts curriculum. I'm sure she will excel at Oxford and make great contributions to society.</p>
<p>this probably doesn't apply to most readers of this post</p>
<p>For engineering majors, it doesn't matter too much where you graduate, just get an internship.</p>
<p>after that first job, if you're talented, and I mean innately TALENTED * clever not just good grades, you will be promoted again and again. you will eventually have your pick of jobs. So for engineering it kind of comes down to your iq. since most of what we engineers learn in college is obsolete by the time we're working, we're expected to have the ability to learn new information and skills very quickly. The key is to have a solid grasp of fundamentals that apply to everything and being smart enough to relate it to new technolgies. </p>
<p>Yet, it's possible to tie it in for other science majors who want a broader liberal arts education. These biology or science majors, as long as you are sure that you are a naturally smart person, not just a hard worker, go ahead and skip the liberal arts portion. i'm sure if you're smart enough to make it into oxford, harvard, mit, that you can learn liberal arts in your sleep or during your spare time. For me, reading the Economist and writing history papers is very trivial compared to learning quantum mechanics in physics.</p>
<p>Addressing engineering and hard sciences majors, Unggio wrote, "as long as you are sure that you are a naturally smart person, not just a hard worker, go ahead and skip the liberal arts portion. i'm sure if you're smart enough to make it into oxford, harvard, mit, that you can learn liberal arts in your sleep or during your spare time. For me, reading the Economist and writing history papers is very trivial compared to learning quantum mechanics in physics."</p>
<p>He's absolutely right, if your goal is simply excellence within your discipline. As I suggested in an earlier post, the elite liberal arts colleges aim higher. They seek to produce graduates who will be equipped to become leaders not only within their vocations, but also in society at large. Of our presidents over the last hundred years, three were educated as engineers: Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>Ignorance of history, philosophy, economics, etc., will be just as limiting when you try understand the issues that plague our society as ignorance of calculus would be in trying to solve engineering problems. Liberal arts colleges are based on the notion that the spheres of knowledge are not mutually exclusive. A number of years ago, MIT began feeding more liberal arts back into its undergraduate curriculum. When asked why, MIT's president said, "Because we're tired of having our most talented graduates end up working for guys from up the river." He referred, of course, to Harvard, just up the Charles.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Ignorance of history, philosophy, economics, etc., will be just as limiting when you try understand the issues that plague our society
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I think unggio83's point is that those disciplines (to make oneself "well rounded") could be learned on your own.</p>
<p>I think I have to agree with audiophile here and say that I also believe that unggio83's point is that those liberal arts disciplines, as they stand now, could be learned on your own. </p>
<p>And I think at least part of has to do with a subject that I have encountered time and time again and to which I still have never heard of a good reason as to why it is so - namely why it is that many liberal arts (not all but many) majors are so much easier, in terms of workload and what is demanded, than engineering disciplines? I am not going to name names, but I think we can all think of quite a few liberal arts majors, even at the top schools, where the classes are invariably easy and you can pass with doing very little work at all. Contrast that with the engineering students on whom work is just piled on mercilessly by their profs. </p>
<p>Hence, at the top schools, you will often times hear students say that they wanted to study engineering, but it proved to be too hard, so now they're majoring in "X-unnamed" liberal arts discipline, but you almost never hear the reverse (I wanted to major in "X-unnamed" liberal arts discipline, but it was too hard, so now I'm majoring in electrical engineering). In principle, there is no reason why any discipline could not be as rigorous and demanding as any other discipline. However, I think we can all agree that at any school, certain disciplines are well-known to be easier than others, and the fact is, the easiest disciplines almost always tend to be one of the liberal arts. Why is that? Why is it that you never hear of anybody say, for example "Oh, chemical engineering, that's what all the football players major in so they can stay eligible without having to study too hard." </p>
<p>There really shouldn't be these large differences in difficulty among the various majors. All majors should be roughly equivalent in difficulty. You might say that one subject is just inherently easier to understand than another. Ok, then why not just assign more and more work in that easier subject? If one book is not enough work, then assign 5. If that's still not enough, then assign 25. Eventually you should be able to equilibrate. You might say that it's not fair to assign all that work to the liberal arts students, but hey, the engineering students are being worked like dogs, and I don't hear anybody crying for them. </p>
<p>However, the point is, at it stands, an engineer really can pick up the equivalent of one of those easy liberal arts educations on the side, just through reading after work and on weekends, because those easy educations never really demanded a whole lot of work and studying to begin with. On the other hand, it's far more difficult for a guy with a liberal arts degree to replicate the kind of education necessary to emulate an engineering degree, because of how much work is involved. </p>
<p>Now again, let me be clear. Not EVERY liberal arts majors are easy. But some are.</p>
<p>"namely why it is that many liberal arts (not all but many) majors are so much easier, in terms of workload and what is demanded, than engineering disciplines? I am not going to name names, but I think we can all think of quite a few liberal arts majors, even at the top schools, where the classes are invariably easy and you can pass with doing very little work at all. Contrast that with the engineering students on whom work is just piled on mercilessly by their profs."</p>
<p>Reason why engineering majors have more work than others (except for of course, Physics majors) is because it is one of the few disciplines that doesn't really require you to get a graduate degree in.</p>
<p>Engineers are done most of the time after undergrad, while liberal arts majors have to pursue PhDs/law degrees in order to get decent jobs.</p>
<p>This said, I think engineering being "difficult" depends on the university, and your GPA.</p>
<p>I think most people can handle an engineering course at a regular university and do decently well.</p>
<p>And again, most people can "scrape through" engineering with a crappy GPA.</p>
<p>The best ones are the engineers who go are in highly ranked engineering programs who pull high GPAs (3.7+).</p>
<p>I'm off topic but...speaking of engineering, someone told me that if you can look at "A" and get "B" & "C" (without working it through) and go to "D", then you have an engineering mind. But, if you have to work out A,B & C to even consider D, then you have a scientific mind. Or do I have this backwards...someone help me out? Maybe this isn't true at all. Maybe someone who studies how the brain works/learns, might know.</p>
<p>My own experience was at a hyper-elite Ivy in the early 1960s before Vietnam, SDS, and the resultant grade inflation. My recent experience is limited to my twin sons at West Point where there are no easy majors -- there is a 38-course core curriculum for everyone, regardless of major, plus a typical load of thirteen courses within each major (engineers have more courses within their major, but don't have a separate engineering sequence within the core as humanities, social science, and hard science majors do) -- and no grade inflation. That's fifty-one semester courses over eight semesters ... no five year or six year programs. Fail one -- and fail to make it up in summer school -- and you don't graduate. Thus, I may not truly understand your complaint.</p>
<p>However, to suggest that someone can pick up "the equivalent of one of those easy liberal arts educations on the side" simply displays the writer's ignorance. We all discount what we don't understand. Preparing a halfway decent undergraduate thesis is, in itself, a major undertaking.</p>
<p>I say again, look at what the leaders in almost every area of American society studied as an undergraduate. I think you will find that the vast majority studied some aspect of what are commonly referred to as the "liberal arts." Now, perhaps engineers should be running the world, but by and large, they aren't. Most of those who are studied the humanities seriously at some point in their educations.</p>