Love defeating students who think they are superior on the basis of their university

[gaiou37]

<p>"Conventional wisdom… </p>

<p>A quick search yielded this topic where everyone seems to be agreeing: Wall Street Recruitment"</p>

<p>Haha “conventional wisdom” and a link to another CC thread where “everyone” (actually 4 people, I counted) seem to be agreeing. Nice back up lol</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

Conventional wisdom… </p>

<p>A quick search yielded this topic where everyone seems to be agreeing: Wall Street Recruitment

</p>

<p>lol Did you not read the article? </p>

<p>“Business Week rates the top business school in the nation. This is the official 2010 listing for undergraduate business schools. Moreover, at all of these school with the big names included(Ivy League & Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, University of Chicago) firms of “Wall Street Caliber” recruit. But remember it does not matter where you go but what you make the best of at where you end go. Even though the top-notch school have a myriad of possibilities!”</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

Haha “conventional wisdom” and a link to another CC thread where “everyone” (actually 4 people, I counted) seem to be agreeing. Nice back up lol

</p>

<p>lol!!!</p>

[Vladenschlutte]

<p>

Haha “conventional wisdom” and a link to another CC thread where “everyone” (actually 4 people, I counted) seem to be agreeing. Nice back up lol

</p>

<p>What evidence would satisfy you? I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time compiling evidence for this. You can agree or disagree, whatever.</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

What evidence would satisfy you? I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time compiling evidence for this. You can agree or disagree, whatever.

</p>

<p>I would like evidence that backs up your claim:</p>

<p>“Certain employers will only interview grads from a select set of schools”.</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>“You can agree or disagree, whatever.” = I know I am wrong.</p>

[Vladenschlutte]

<p>[Goldman:</a> An Open Mind on Recruiting](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>

<p>

While many investment banks target finance majors, Goldman Sachs (GS) mainly recruits at Ivy League and other top schools that do not even have business programs.

</p>

<p>That’s one example. But if that doesn’t satisfy you I’m done.</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>Your statement: “Certain employers will ONLY interview grads from a select set of schools”.</p>

<p>Your evidence: “While many investment banks target finance majors, Goldman Sachs (GS) MAINLY recruits at Ivy League and other top schools that do not even have business programs.”</p>

<p>Big difference because only and mainly.</p>

[gaiou37]

<p>Haha I wouldn’t even want to work for Goldman Sachs lol that would pose a moral dilemma for me</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@gaiou37

For grad school, I am going to the University of Victoria (Canada) because I love the location.

Graduate school is for further study, not sightseeing. While ending up in a nice location is fortunate, it should not be the reason for choosing a graduate program. The reputation of a graduate program and/or one’s graduate mentor should be the primary concern. If U Victoria meets your academic needs better than anywhere else - which is rather unlikely but possible - it would be a reasonable choice, as would attending if it’s the only funded offer. </p>

<p>Presumably your faculty advisor(s) discussed this. </p>

<p>

@insomniatic

How do you know this? Have you ever attended a community college class?

As someone who has taught/adjuncted and/or TAed at a top-notch research university, a mediocre public university, and a community college…yes, there are some pretty big differences in student bodies between colleges. I absolutely adore my UCLA students, largely because they’re quick on the uptake and are eager to learn. It’s sad that my international students at UCLA have better reading skills and can express themselves more clearly and effectively than most of my former community college students. REALLY sad.</p>

<p>You are free to make whatever assumptions you like. By all means, you can claim that up is down and down is up. Regardless, tomorrow the sun will rise in the east, grass will still be green, and the average Harvard student will remain a lot more intelligent and motivated than the average student at West Cowcountry State Regional U.</p>

[Vladenschlutte]

<p>

Big difference because only and mainly.

</p>

<p>Fair enough. I should have said that some employers have a strong bias towards particular sets of universities. Is that an agreeable statement?</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

Fair enough. I should have said that some employers have a strong bias towards particular sets of universities. Is that an agreeable statement?

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t say some. I would say very, very few.</p>

[gaiou37]

<p>“The reputation of a graduate program and/or one’s graduate mentor should be the primary concern.”</p>

<p>That’s just your opinion. Some people don’t put their primary concern on prestige, that doesn’t make them any less smart, it just means they have different priorities. The University of Victoria has a sociology MA program with interesting classes and faculty members who have similar research interests, and that’s good enough for me. I could care less about the school ranking. Maybe I will make less money than if I had gone to a “prestigious” program (even though that’s debatable), but if I cared about cash I probably wouldn’t be sociology major in the first place.</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

and the average Harvard student will remain a lot more intelligent and motivated than the average student at West Cowcountry State Regional U.

</p>

<p>You have any proof to back this up?</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>[John</a> Hrabe: Harvard University or Community College? Why the Choice Isn’t As Crazy As It Sounds](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Harvard University or Community College? Why the Choice Isn't As Crazy As It Sounds | HuffPost College)</p>

<p>Interesting article. </p>

<p>

Community colleges avoid this debt conundrum. A decade ago, for just $12 per unit, I completed my general education requirements at a Los Angeles-area community college. At Moorpark College, I learned public speaking from one of the nation’s most accomplished speech programs, which has won nine national championships in 40 years. Had I taken the same class down the street at UCLA, I would have been taught by a second-year graduate assistant with no teaching experience.

</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@gaiou37

“The reputation of a graduate program and/or one’s graduate mentor should be the primary concern.”</p>

<p>That’s just your opinion. Some people don’t put their primary concern on prestige, that doesn’t make them any less smart, it just means they have different priorities.

Kindly spare me the attempted moral high road - it’s not effective and comes across as remarkably naive. </p>

<p>It has nothing to do with prestige and everything to do with academic strength. Anyone serious enough about his/her discipline to try grad school should aim for the programs with good rigor, accomplished and connected faculty, strong research, and good placement records. To aim lower - especially when picking a program that lasts a mere two years and is in such a competitive field - is a rather risky gamble. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that I advocate choosing strong programs, not universities. For example, a student interested in Indo-European linguistics would consider both Harvard and UGA, a student interested in marine biology would consider both MIT and URI, and a student interested in classics would consider both Princeton and U Cincinnati. Overall prestige is meaningless at the graduate level - program strength is not.</p>

<p>

@insomniatic

You have any proof to back this up?

Pick any metric you like - awards production (Rhodes/NSF/Truman/etc.), graduate/professional school placement, what have you - and you’ll see that the top universities mop the floor with most other colleges. Heck, Harvard alone has produced more NSF scholars than at least two dozen less selective publics combined.</p>

<p>As has been said time and again on these forums, this is largely because they enroll smarter students to begin with. For example, it’s no coincidence that the schools with by far the best law placement - Harvard, Brown, Yale, etc. - also have the highest LSAT scores in the country.</p>

<p>

Had I taken the same class down the street at UCLA, I would have been taught by a second-year graduate assistant with no teaching experience.

Most community college courses are taught by people with only a master’s degree and no particular certification in teaching. Perhaps some find this preferable to a highly qualified PhD instructor with a qualified PhD student as a supplementary instructor…I do not.</p>

<p>Community college faculty primarily consist of people who:</p>

<p>(a) Couldn’t get into a PhD program and are stuck with a MA
(b) Couldn’t get a teaching job at a four-year university</p>

<p>Community colleges are rife with apathetic students, poor salaries, and nonexistent research support. Hardly an attractive draw for serious scholars. Good scholars are not necessarily good teachers, but neither are community college instructors. Sadly but obviously, dedication does not equate to effectiveness.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

While ending up in a nice location is fortunate, it should not be the reason for choosing a graduate program.

</p>

<p>I’m glad you get to decide what’s right for another person ;).</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

Glancing over Moorpark’s schedule of classes, one gets to take public speaking with someone with only a master’s degree and no particular certification in teaching. Perhaps some find this preferable to a highly qualified PhD instructor with a qualified PhD student as a supplementary instructor…I do not.

</p>

<p>“Or worse, I might have been taught by a tenured university professor. Just as price doesn’t correlate to value, academic publications are not the best bellwether of quality instruction. The most accomplished academics are often the worst teachers. Without the pressure to publish, community college professors have more time to invest in their students.”</p>

[insomniatic]

<p>

Pick any metric you like - awards production (Rhodes/NSF/Truman/etc.), graduate/professional school placement, what have you - and you’ll see that the top universities mop the floor with most other colleges. Heck, Harvard alone has produced more NSF scholars than at least two dozen less selective publics combined.

</p>

<p>So what if you have an award? Once you get into a job, nobody will care.</p>

<p>

As has been said time and again on these forums, this is largely because they enroll smarter students to begin with. For example, it’s no coincidence that the schools with by far the best law placement - Harvard, Brown, Yale, etc. - also have the highest LSAT scores in the country.

</p>

<p>[Best</a> Law Schools for Getting a Biglaw Job (2011) Above the Law: A Legal Web Site ? News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts](<a href=“http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/best-law-schools-for-getting-a-biglaw-job-2011/]Best”>http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/best-law-schools-for-getting-a-biglaw-job-2011/)</p>

<p>You might wants to check your facts.</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@insomniatic

So what if you have an award? Once you get into a job, nobody will care.

You asked for proof; I gave you example metrics. I didn’t emphasize their importance, and obviously they’re not a requirement for a job. </p>

<p>

@insomniatic

Without the pressure to publish, community college professors have more time to invest in their students.

Except for the fact that most community colleges are increasingly relying heavily on adjunct professors. If you’re not aware of what that entails, it’s hiring part-time instructors and paying them about $2000-3000 per course, meaning that many adjuncts are juggling upwards of 6 courses a semester just to barely scrape by. Obviously great conditions for “having more time to invest in their students.”</p>

<p>Here’s one account of such a life:

In the winter of 1992, I got my first part-time position, having just finished my dissertation the previous June and having moved to Fresno CA, where my wife had been hired in a tenure-track position at Fresno State starting in September of 1991. It took me the Fall Semester to line up future work, but that winter and spring of 1992 I taught a total of four classes at Fresno State and at the College of the Sequoias, a local Junior College. I had a total of 115 students enrolled in my classes and was paid a grand total of 8,600 dollars.</p>

<p>During the following academic year, 1992-1993, I taught a total of 12 classes at three separate colleges, with a total of 460 students enrolled in my classes, and received a grand total of $22,400. And so on, year by year, teaching between six and 12 classes per year, with between 135 and 445 students per year enrolled in my classes, with no TA’s to help me in any way, and never earning more than 23,000 dollars per year as a Part-Timer, despite teaching more classes than any of the Full-Time professors in my departments…</p>

<p>Overall, my usual teaching load as an Adjunct or Part-Time Professor was 11 or 12 classes per year, at an average total salary of about 20,000 dollars.

</p>

<p>

@insomniatic

You might wants to check your facts.

Yeah…that’s kind of what I meant about my UCLA students having better reading abilities. It was pretty obvious I was talking about placement into law school.</p>