State schools, private schools, and you.

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
How many forestry majors end up in agriculture? How many in the medical field work in medicine? How many History majors become... gasp.. history teachers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, let's find out how many history majors do that. So let's look at Berkeley. Berkeley has a top-ranked history program. So let's see what kinds of jobs Berkeley history grads take.</p>

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

<p>What do I see here? EMT? Associate buyer for Macy's? Clerk for the FBI? Realtor? Legal assistant? Web designer? Editorial assistant for the YMCA? Inventory controller? Member of the ski patrol for Perisher Blue (a ski resort)?</p>

<p>In fact, the data clearly shows that the VAST MAJORITY of Berkeley history grads end up in jobs that have nothing to do with history. And that's Berkeley we're talking about - Berkeley having a top history program. So if even most Berkeley history grads end up in non-history jobs, what does that imply about the history grads of most other schools? </p>

<p>Your example of medicine is unwarranted. I was never talking about graduate school. Obviously graduate school is a deeper, higher commitment (and furthermore, you can get into medical school with ANY major, including history). I am simply talking about undergrad here. Undergrad is a weak commitment. Most people end up in jobs that have nothing to do with what they majored in as undergrads.</p>

<p>Your forestry example is more warranted, but only slightly so, simply because there are so few forestry students there, relative to the number of liberal arts students. Liberal arts grads represent the VAST MAJORITY of college students out there, and like I said, most of them won't end up working in the field they majored in. For example, Berkeley confers about 200 history bachelor's degrees every year, but only about 10 forestry degrees. </p>

<p>But hey, don't take my word for it. Here's the data. See for yourself. Click on any of the liberal arts degrees and see for yourself. </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]
however if you are persuing an undergrad degree in CS, then the chances are you won't be applying for a job at a vets office. Then again, you might. But everything in life is possible. Again, you cannot apply blanket statements to this but you continue to do so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And so have you. For example, you have talked about how people shouldn't do things they don't like, but the fact is, plenty of people do it every day as a matter of course. For example, there were times when I didn't want to get up and go to work. But I did it. There are times when students don't want to get up and go to school. But they should do it anyway. You don't always get to do things you like to do. To say otherwise is a blanket statement. Your statements have been just as much 'blanket' as mine. </p>

<p>
[quote]
ND sucks and is overrated. They have hardly any talent. Again, it's a name and they hardly get anyone into the NFL. How about WF? NW?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? Hardly anybody, eh? So what do I see here - Notre Dame actually produced the MOST NFL players between 1998-2002.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/Which_Schools_Produced_The_Most_NFL_Players_1998-2002.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/Which_Schools_Produced_The_Most_NFL_Players_1998-2002.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>According to the WSJ, Notre Dame was 11th in terms of "NFL success". But I think that's a bit warped because the WSJ measures how successful the grads were in the NFL. I was simply talking about just getting players in the NFL in the first place, not necessarily how successful they are once they're there. But in any case, ND still beats WF and NW. What's up with that? I thought you said that ND sucked. If so, then that means that WF and NW must REALLY suck. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe because they offer better scholarships and as many legal benefits as possible.</p>

<p>And Cal has just many top recruits, just like OSU and Wazzu.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just as many? In both rankings above, Cal (while I agree is not bad), doesn't touch the top schools in terms of NFL production. In both rankings, Cal loses to USC in terms of NFL production. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So, they recruit..so does every school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. But why are some more successful than others? If it was pure random luck, you would expect that, by sheer luck of the draw, every school would have an equal chance at a top recruiting class. I can guarantee you that next year, Ohio State is not going to have the worst recruiting class of all 117 Division 1-A teams in the country. Neither are Michigan, Florida, Notre Dame, USC, or any other top-ranked team. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In my world? you mean THE world. I've been out there, for 10 years. That other world? It's tiny. very small. so small that most here on CC will never see it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the world of top schools like HYPS are similarly small - so small that most people here on CC will never see it. But so what? If you can get in, you should probably take it. </p>

<p>I know a guy who used to play professional basketball. He played pro ball in Europe and almost made it to the NBA several times. The world of the NBA is obviously extremely small. But this guy had a legitimate shot at getting into that world. Should I tell him that the odds are so small that he shouldn't even try? I don't think so. Sure, the odds FOR ME are small to get in. But for him, the odds were actually reasonable. He still didn't get in, but hey, at least he tried. So now he can happily close that chapter in his life and tell himself that he gave it his best shot, it didn't work out, so now he is pursuing other activities. But at least now he knows. That's a lot better than wondering 'what if'. </p>

<p>So sure, JCampbell, I agree that if we are talking about just average people who have no chance at getting into the tiny world of elite jobs, then there is no point in tempting them with this kind of talk. But we're not. We are talking about people who have a shot at making it to the Ivy League. These people also have a legitimate shot at getting into the rarefied world just like my friend had a legitimate shot at making it to the NBA. I would argue that if you have that shot, you should probably pursue it to see what becomes of it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
See, that level of defeatism is just horrid. Sure, you have to do things you don't want to do. However this is not one of those cases. </p>

<p>Taking one or two courses is an example. Spending 4 years of your live planning on the potential for another 4 that may or may not happen is not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? This happens all the time. When you have a kid, you are basically making an 18-year commitment. You don't know what's going to happen in those 18 years. That kind of commitment makes a 4-year commitment to college look piddling by comparison, especially when you consider the fact that if you go to Harvard (or whatever other top school) and find out that you hate it, you can still transfer out. But you can't "transfer" out of taking care of your own kid. The same thing is true of getting married, buying a house, and plenty of other long-term decisions that people make without knowing what the consequences will be, and for which it is difficult to back out of. </p>

<p>By your logic, you are basically saying that nobody should ever make a long-term commitment to anything. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No, striving for status through appearence over substance is what is wrong with the world today. It's why we end up with complete morons in management positions. It's why you end up with shallow people. It's why real talent and potential is wasted.</p>

<p>I'm curious, you state things in this thread that contradict what you say in others:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...88#post3341088%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...88#post3341088&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? If anything it actually REINFORCES what I have said - which is that your specific degree doesn't matter. </p>

<p>Besides, you didn't look at my answer in terms of the context of the thread. The person asked whether the specific degree (the B.Mgmt.) degree really mattered? I said no, because it doesn't. He didn't ask anything about whether the SCHOOL mattered. He was only talking about the specific degree WITHIN a school. Under the terms of that debate, the answer is not. However, if the question is - does it matter whether you go to Harvard vs. a no-name 4th tier school, then the answer would be yes. </p>

<p>And besides, who says that striving for status over substance is a bad thing, especially when status and substance are not entirely separable? For example, I would argue that most people want to do things that make their families proud of them. I see nothing wrong with that, even though one could say that that's a triumph of style over substance. For example, I think most parents don't want their daughters to run off to become porn stars and strippers. Isn't that a matter of style over substance? After all, if you really didn't care about style, then why would you care about what your family thinks? But I think most people do care about what their family thinks, so they would refrain from doing certain things even if they want to do it. </p>

<p>Like I said, sometimes you do things you don't really want to do in order to get the respect of people you care about. That's life. Again, I go to the ballet with my girlfriend not because I really want to go, but because SHE wants go, and I want to make her happy, even if the act of doing so doesn't really make me happy. </p>

<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...74&postcount=9%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...74&postcount=9&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And look at the thread in context. The question was not "which school should I go to". The question is "given the school that I am at, which degree should I get".</p>

<p>
[quote]
Bruno, you're actually preaching to the choir. I have always held that the quality of your publication record is important if you want to get an academic job, perhaps even more so than the brand name of your school. </p>

<p>But again, the OP was asking for how important it is to attend a top program in your field, and I would argue that matters immensely if you want to be an academic. Whether it matters more than your publication record, perhaps not, but it still matters a great deal. </p>

<p>And again, I would reiterate that placing at Harvard for EE is not a particularly amazing accomplishment, at least not more so than placing at any other good, but not elite, program. Harvard is not (yet) a powerhouse school in EE, or in signal processing, which is what I presume that you're talking about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, what's your point? I am not talking about the esoterica as far as getting placed into a tenure-track assistant prof job. I am talking STRICTLY about the undergrad degree and its utility. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am curious as to how old you are, what school you attend (or attended) and how many years you've been in the workforce. I'm wondering if you talk from actual expierence or over what you've read online. I'd like to know where you get your information from or at least who talks to me about the "real world"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, PM me. I am quite certain that my biography will match yours at any metric you want to use. To give you one hint, I've already proven that you are factually wrong about the process to becoming a CCIE, because you don't need to be a CCNA or CCNP to become a CCIE. How exactly would I know that? Hmmm... questions, questions. </p>

<p>But I have one condition. If I check out, and you are satisfied that I have plenty of experience and education, then are you going to come back here and change your mind publicly? If not, then what exactly do I gain by revealing my biography to you? After all, if you've already made up your mind no matter what, then I see no value in telling you anything about me at all. If you're not going to change your mind, then what exactly is there for me to gain by telling you?</p>

[sakky]

<p>Now, JCampbell, don't get me wrong. I actually agree with some of your points, particularly your point that people shouldn't feel like failures if they don't get into top schools. Nobody is out to make anybody feel like a failure. Like I said, life goes on. Sometimes you can do everything perfectly, and still not get what you want. That's life.</p>

<p>I also never said that people should NEVER do what they want, or that fit NEVER matters. Obviously man cannot live by bread alone. Obviously fit is something that should be considered.</p>

<p>However, my point is that going to a top school, ceteris parabus (everything else equal), is a desirable thing that people should rightfully strive for. Whether you actually make it to a top school is a different matter entirely. Sure, if you don't make it, then you don't make it. </p>

<p>But at least you should TRY to make it. You should try to do well. You should learn self-discipline so that you can develop the pain tolerance necessary in later life (and everybody will need that pain tolerance at some point in their life). </p>

<p>And like I said, sometimes you have to do things you don't really want to do. Life is not always about doing things you want to do. Sometimes you have to work hard even when you don't want to, and even when the payoff is uncertain. Raising kids, for example, involves a huge amount of painful work that nobody really wants to do, and the payoff is highly uncertain. </p>

<p>JCampbell, I'm quite sure that you know this to be true. We both know that everybody has to sometimes put up with things they don't really like. So that's not what we are really disputing, all evidence to the contrary. So you can't really tell kids that they should pursue EC's or study hard only when they want to, because, again, life is not always about doing only the things that you want to do. Sometimes you really do have to do things you don't like. Sometimes you don't always get the "fit" that you want. </p>

<p>Besides, let's talk about the concept of "fit". You talk about people choosing a school for fit. Yet the fact is, there are a variety of top schools out there. Some are very small - like Caltech. Others are quite large, like Berkeley. Some are rural, like Dartmouth. Others are urban like Columbia. Some have great football teams, like Michigan. Some have terrible football teams, like MIT or Caltech. No matter what your personal preference is, I am quite sure that you can find one top school out there that fits you. So I don't see why we have to necessarily exclude top schools in the name of 'fit'. Furthermore, the bad schools are not guaranteed to fit you either. Plenty of schools offer both bad academics AND a bad fit. What people should be striving for is a top school that ALSO provides a good fit. Neither is exclusive to the other. You can have both. </p>

<p>And besides, like I said, if you go to a top school and then find out that you absolutely hate it, then quit. Nobody says you have to stay. Transfer to somewhere else. Or just get a job. You're not married to the school. I am not asking you to stick it out at a school that you absolutely cannot stand. </p>

<p>The beautiful thing about going to a top school and then leaving is that, generally, as long as you are in good academic standing when you leave, you can usually return anytime you want. Actress Elisabeth Shue left Harvard for a 15 year hiatus to have a successful Hollywood career, and then returned to Harvard to finish her degree. Rivers Cuomo of the band Weezer took 7 years off from Harvard to promote his musical career. Olympic Gold Medalist Sarah Hughes took a year off from Yale to skate on Stars on Ice. Plenty of other less famous people take time off from college. The point is, you don't have to stay if you really don't want to. </p>

<p>The nice side benefit is that you can just matriculate at one of these top schools, and then quickly withdraw. The simple act of matriculation basically "reserves" your spot at the school, such that you can always go back (by, at most, submitting a reasonable letter of request for re-entry to the school). So now, you can pursue other things in your life knowing that if you want to go back to school, your spot at the table is reserved for you. And if you decide you really want to transfer to a lesser school, you can do that. However, transferring from a lesser school to a better one, although possible, is much harder. For example, if you get into Harvard, but turn it down to go to a no-name school, but then later decide that you would rather go to Harvard after all, it may be too late, as you may not get in if you apply as a transfer. On the other hand, by matriculating at Harvard, you can still transfer away to a no-name school. Hence, it's a safer choice.</p>

[willpower102]

<p>
[quote]
I love how you pointed out "Harvard brand name" because it reminds me of kids who pay $200 for a shirt that has a company logo on it.

[/quote]
If that $200 shirt had the power to surround me with a higher concentration of some of the most brilliant minds in the world, you'd better believe my closet would be stocked with them. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
When we're talking about the ultra-luxury car market like the Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bugatti, Bentley, Maybach, let's be honest, why else does anybody buy these cars except to show off?

[/quote]

And it's interesting to note that, after one drives a car like this, the majority will agree it performs much better than anything else they've ever driven: Just like the best schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have no reason to believe that these people are less happy or struggle more than people who go to no-name schools. Heck, if anything, I would argue that they are MORE happy.

[/quote]
I concur. After attending easy schools and tough schools, i would choose the tough schools any day. Why? Becasue i'm competent, but lazy. I need the high pressure and the stress to push me to do my best. It's too easy to skim by with B's and C's accomplishing nothing out of the ordinary at an easy school surrounded by mediocrity; especially teachers. Of course, there will be a few like-minded, driven, people but not as high per capita as a tougher school. The best part of a top school is amount of teachers that are willing to challenge and push bright students. I find that, for some students, this may be the difference between success and failure.</p>

<p>I guess what I’m seeing more and more is that I don’t have anyone to talk to here at a Tennessee community college. There’s no one that shares similar great dreams and visions, and because of that fact, it’s easier for me to let them slip away as just dreams. Whereas, on the occasion that I find people of a like mind, people so ambitious that they are willing to pursue a vision, even against 99% odds of failure, I feel more driven, invigorated, and alive, than ever.</p>

<p>Because of this, I now realize how important it is to surround myself with that atmosphere.</p>

<p>I do still hold to the theory that, if you are going to be great, you are going to do it anywhere. But really, why try and cross a river with little help and fight or get swept along with the current, when you could collaborate with fellow would-be bridge builders? I know going to a top school doesn’t guarantee success, but I think it may set me up in a better overall position. And luck seems to favor the prepared. :)</p>

<p>All of that aside, what if I don’t get accepted to any of the best school and end up going to a state school? Well, I’ll hunt out the few people like me and work my damndest to achieve the same goals. It just may be a rockier road.</p>