<p>News</a> from the Front</p>
<p>The above link offers an interesting take on the issue that I think is quite valid in some circumstances. I still believe that the reputation of your undergrad uni will take you a long way, but maybe it shouldn't be that way.</p>
<p>For some fields, it's a lot easier to get recruited if you go to a "good college." This is because the best companies/firms/whatever don't want to waste their resources recruiting at schools where they already know they're not interested in 99% of the student body.</p>
<p>True. And most people don't think like the gentleman who wrote the above article, but it's at least refreshing to know that not everyone in this world emphasizes prestige.</p>
<p>I don't think the choice of college is that critical for how others view you. I think it's critical for how you view you. You will be influenced, intentionally or unintentionally, by the peer group you keep. You'll adjust your goals and ambitions to theirs, and your self-expectations will be elevated by a strong peer group even if they're not necessarily negatively impacted by an average peer group.</p>
<p>But consider--Univ of Texas at Austin is the college selected by the second largest group (256 students) of National Merit finalists in the U.S.<br>
Harvard University attracts a larger group--by 2 students.
All U.T.-A. offers is in-state tuition to these NMFs, too.<br>
If you hang out in the honors colleges of large state universities, you will likewise meet an ambitious peer group.
These days, with the high cost of a college education, I know for a fact that many of the gifted students at the local high school in my town are settling for attending the state university. They will continue to motivate each other in that new setting, too.
You have to be selective in who you spend most of your out-of-studying time with, but you are not doomed to lowering your expectations for yourself by attending a state university by any stretch.</p>
<p>As long as you go to a decent school, such as your local state university, I don't think where you go for undergrad matters. I've heard that it helps you get your first job but that's it.</p>
<p>I did not read the whole article, but I did read this as the percieved advantages for going to an elite college "you'd learn more, get better jobs, make more money". I think option 1 is just bollocks in the academic sense at least. You can learn plenty well anywhere. In fact, I'd be surprised if my Professors in college significantly surpassed the quality of teachers I had in high school. Sure, in most cases, my Professors have done things a high school teacher can only dream about, but the great majority of my high school teachers were really good teachers. Now, in other senses, I think it may matter where you go to school. Like, if you go to your local state university, you probably won't get as much diversity as if you went to Top 25 University which enrolls students from all around the country. I think geographic diversity is pretty important and you can learn a lot from it. The last two advantages, which are basically the same thing, is not inherently true. It would not surprise me (actually it would surprise me if the opposite were true) if Top 25 kids make more $$ but is it the college or the individual? I think it's the individual. Frankly, a lot of kids at top schools are pre-law or pre-med, or the infamous pre-ibanking. Thus, obviously they're gonna be wealthy. The kids at the "local state schools" aren't precluded inherently from going down these career paths, it's just that a greater portion of their students aren't capable for whatever reason to become lawyers or medical doctors or investment bankers. Consider that for the first two you have to take a standardized test and have a pretty high GPA to be in contention, a feat which we know is going to highly favor those who went to top universities, seeing as they've done it before. To be perfectly honest, I think the biggest advantage to top schools is just being around peers that have done awesome, non-academic things. But then again, the downside is that they are more likely to be arrogant about it.</p>
<p>Where you go undergrad matters people. The type of degree you have also says a lot about your undergraduate experience. Take a look at these three undergraduate degrees:</p>
<p>B.S. Mechanical Engineering
B.S. History
B.A. English</p>
<p>Which is the most impressive? I'm taking the guy/gal with the B.S. in History because chances are that person is well rounded and can do almost any task handed to him. An English degree will make you a highly effective reader and writer. Mechanical Engineering will make you a proficient mathematician. The History guy with the B.S. attached can probably do anything because he/she had to take the engineering/math classes necessary to earn the B.S. in a humanities program.</p>
<p>A recruiter or job interviewer will wonder, "How the heck does this person have a B.S. in a humanities major?" They'll then look to what special program the person was in to see that they had a drive to excell in all walks. Maybe your undergrad program doesn't allow you to get a B.S. in humanities, or a B.A. in engineering. That is something that ultimately matters about your undergrad experience.</p>
<p>Basically, during your undergrad experience, did you become well-rounded and prepared enough for another course of study that suited you well in graduate school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where you go undergrad matters people. The type of degree you have also says a lot about your undergraduate experience. Take a look at these three undergraduate degrees:</p>
<p>B.S. Mechanical Engineering
B.S. History
B.A. English</p>
<p>Which is the most impressive?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What you study in undergrad matters much more than where you study it. </p>
<p>I don't buy your argument about how the history major looks most impressive. What are you hiring this person for? What does this guy have that any other liberal arts major doesn't? Many people have what it takes to study liberal arts, but not many have what it takes to study engineering.</p>
<p>If you ask me, mechanical engineering is by far the most impressive of the three, ceteris paribus. With MechE guy, you are guaranteed to get a competent, analytical thinker. A MechE has proven himself by taking an extremely, rigorous, difficult curriculum whereas the same cannot be NECESSARILY said about the history or English majors. A MechE has gained both analytical thinkings skills and skills that are readily applicable to the job whereas the English and history majors have gained, well, just analytical thinking skills.</p>
<p>I think where you go to undergrad matters, definitely. The level of prestige of your undergrad school helps you find jobs/grad school programs to go to and helps you achieve your goals much more easily. It also puts you through more difficult programs to get you competitive for the highly selective jobs and grad schools. If undergrad didn't matter then why are there rankings and selectivity? Everyone would be equal. I guarantee you the Business major from any Anywho State will not be given a position in NYC on wall street over the Wharton or top 15 B-school graduate.</p>
<p>However, I disagree that the History major is most impressive. The Mechanical Engineer is the most impressive. At UNC (where I go), people who complete the Bio-Medical Engineering program have 100% acceptance to med schools due to the sheer difficulty of the program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The level of prestige of your undergrad school helps you find jobs/grad school programs to go to and helps you achieve your goals much more easily.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It will help you find good jobs right after graduation, but whether or not the prestige of your undergraduate university will help you 10-20 years is highly debatable. In fact a Princeton professor did a study on students who went to the Ivy League versus students who got into Ivy leagues but decided to go to a less prestigious institution instead... I don't know the details of the study but I'm pretty sure the outcome was that graduates from both Ivies and non-Ivies made about the same amount of money and held similar jobs in the long run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If undergrad didn't matter then why are there rankings and selectivity?
[/quote]
So just because rankings exist that means where you go to undergrad all of a sudden matters? I don't follow. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I guarantee you the Business major from any Anywho State will not be given a position in NYC on wall street over the Wharton or top 15 B-school graduate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right out of graduation, agreed. But remember as I said before that "What you study in undergrad matters much more than where you study it." Undergraduate business is not a strong, foundational undergraduate degree because many of the things learned in the major can easily be learned on the job.</p>
<p>lol on the history major and double lol on history majors taking engineering classes...</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol on the history major and double lol on history majors taking engineering classes...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol, if anything it's the other way around. I usually see engineers taking history classes rather than history majors taking engineering classes.</p>
<p>The level of prestige helps you get into grad school simply because it's going to be more difficult. Secondly, going to a prestigious school and doing well= getting into a grad school (i.e. med school, dental school, law school, etc..)=an automatic high career. Let me remind you that A LOT of people don't even make it that far (you can't compare yourself to CCers because they are a tiny fraction of the population). A prestigious school helps guide your career plans more than a less-prestigious school. </p>
<p>Did I say "just because rankings exist" means you where you go matters? No, but what that means is you get the better profs, the better programs, the better job resources, the better EC resources, the better internship, study abroad, whatever it may be.... because these schools get their names from the level of success of their student body.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with going to a less prestigious school, however, a lot more is riding on each individual person to set their own future. And based on personal experience and the people I know, if you are serious about setting a great career ahead for yourself, those with more prestigious degrees were offered more opportunities to do so due to their peers, surroundings, etc..</p>
<p>I don't think you saw the notation I was referring to.</p>
<p>B.S. Means Bachelor of Science- definitely tougher than just getting a B.A. in a humanities major.</p>
<p>If you have a Bachelor of Science in History, you have to wonder what that person was studying. It means that they have a higher math/engineering background than any other history major you're going to find, thus better suited to perform any job.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, going to a prestigious school and doing well= getting into a grad school (i.e. med school, dental school, law school, etc..)=an automatic high career.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Definitely agreed. But who's to say doing well at a good public school is not equal to getting into grad school, etc.? I feel like if you do well at a decent school, the same opportunities are available, and you can have "an automatic high career." Here is a good article about the study done by Princeton economist Alan Krueger, who claims that going to Princeton, or any other Ivy won't do you better over the long run than going to some other school:</p>
<p>The</a> Worthless Ivy League? | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did I say "just because rankings exist" means you where you go matters?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You did say though that "If undergrad doesn't matter why are there rankings and selectivity?" </p>
<p>I interpreted this statement as to mean that the existence of rankings and selectivity must somehow prove or necessitate that undergrad matters. Sorry if I misinterpreted this, but this is just the way it came across.</p>
<p>Why do most people think that a BS is a more prestigious or more difficult degree than a BA? Some schools only offer BA's in subjects like Bio and Chem so the differentiation isn't really fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think you saw the notation I was referring to.</p>
<p>B.S. Means Bachelor of Science- definitely tougher than just getting a B.A. in a humanities major.</p>
<p>If you have a Bachelor of Science in History, you have to wonder what that person was studying. It means that they have a higher math/engineering background than any other history major you're going to find, thus better suited to perform any job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I saw the notation you were referring to. I still think the MechE comes out ahead because of the reasons I outlined before.</p>
<p>What would happen if the history major had a BA? Would the engineering grad look better now? I just seem its a little far fetched that an employer would take a history grad just because he has a BS, over a mechanical engineering grad, ceteris paribus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do most people think that a BS is a more prestigious or more difficult degree than a BA? Some schools only offer BA's in subjects like Bio and Chem so the differentiation isn't really fair.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^Definitely agreed.</p>
<p>lol, you've gotta be kidding me. I thought you were a history major and was trying to pull for history majors, but now you are now just going on and on ...</p>
<p>History majors don't take engineering and hard science/math classes. The required math for BS in history in most cases are like an intro calculus class or a statistics class. The difference between a BA and a BS is usually 2-3 classes. Recruiters and graduate schools know this... lol.</p>
<p>At my school, we have to take 13 Classes to earn the B.S. I assure you it's not easy.</p>
<p>And if we're talking about prestige, what does it matter anyway about the B.S. and B.A.?</p>