Undergradaute Reputations?

Graduate School
1

<p>I'm researching graduate programs in my prospective field, but the schools that have it keep coming up on the "make fun of your state's colleges" thread in another part of the forum. I know most comments are stereotypes, but I'm pretty sick of seeing "haha party hardy lololz" or "people go here because they didn't get in ____". </p>

<p>I know the strength of the programs themselves have no correlation with prestige. I went to an undergrad only LAC. How do graduates and undergraduates interact from a graduate perspective? How does the atmosphere and culture of the school's undergraduate institution affect graduate life and at a university? At your school?</p>

2

<p>In my experience, they have little in common, at least in the science.</p>

<p>I went to UCSB for grad school. Party? What's that? Beach? Oh, is that what I saw on the way to the lab?</p>

<p>It is also generally true that major state unis that have so so undergrad reputations can have outstanding grad departments. But you must look at a department by department basis, of course.</p>

3

<p>I see about five undergraduates from my graduate program's undergraduate school, and they all work in my lab.</p>

<p>You're better off thinking about undergraduate programs and graduate programs as being two entirely separate entities that may happen to share a common name and campus.</p>

4

<p>Let's put it this way: Although the public at large may not be impressed that you studied say, City Management at the University of Kansas, due to the fact that their UG has a so so reputation, anyone who needs to know about Urban policy will be impressed.</p>

<p>If youre worried about the name drop prestige of your school, blow 60K on a certificate at Harvard. If you want a job in your chosen field, choose the best grad school no matter what UG it happens to be attached to.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
If youre worried about the name drop prestige of your school, blow 60K on a certificate at Harvard. If you want a job in your chosen field, choose the best grad school no matter what UG it happens to be attached to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course, that actually presumes that you actually want a job in your chosen field. Many students, even some graduate students, actually don't intend to take a job in their field and are just using their graduate program simply as a stepping stone to get the job that they really want (read: management consulting, investment banking, private equity, venture capital, etc.). As a case in point, I can immediately think of several people I know who entered graduate programs in engineering at MIT not because they actually wanted to work as engineers, but just because they wanted to get access to consulting recruiters. It worked; they're now working for McKinsey, BCG, Bain, etc. </p>

<p>Of course one might ask if that's what they really wanted, why did they go to MIT for grad engineering? The answer is simple. They had worked as engineers for several years and were tired of it and wanted a career change. But the fact is, the top consulting firms recruit only at schools. You can't just work for several years and then simply decide one fine day that you now want to take a job at McKinsey. If that's what you want to do, you basically have no choice but to go back to school. And not just any school, but a highly prestigious school. These guys were tired of working as engineers, but they had the academic and work records that were good enough to get them into MIT, and so they came simply to get access to the MIT recruiting office. Hence, they leveraged their MIT grad eng program to springboard them to the job that they really wanted. It's a quite clever strategy when you think about it. Heck, one guy didn't even bother to graduate from MIT, instead dropping out as soon as he got the job offer that he really wanted (and the employer didn't formally require that he actually graduate). </p>

<p>The other aspect you have to keep in mind is what will you do if you actually do want to get a job in your chosen field, but simply can't find a job? I was talking to a Harvard astronomy PhD candidate the other day, and he stated that while he ultimately wants to get a tenure-track astronomy position, in case he can't find such a position, he's also studying financial engineering and financial mathematics on the side in case so that he can take a job on Wall Street as an investment banker or hedge fund associate. That's not his first choice, but he also knows full well that there aren't that many astronomy professor positions to go around. Couple that with the fact that he is married and hence has to worry about his wife's career and happiness. {For example, maybe he would be happy taking a position at some no-name school somewhere in the boonies, but his wife would surely be extremely unhappy with that.} Hence, via his financial and mathematical acumen, coupled with the Harvard brand name and connections, he is building himself a strong backup career in case his desired career doesn't pan out. </p>

<p>But of course all of these strategies can work only if you go to a school with a high-powered brand name and accompanying strong overall recruiting/networking resources. To continue the example above, if you study city management at the University of Kansas and then can't (or don't want to) get a job in city management or urban policy, then, frankly, you'd be better off just going to Harvard and getting an unrelated degree.</p>

6

<p>To reinforce my point, let me give you another personal story of mine. I know a Turkish guy who is in a PhD program at Harvard. He has confided to me that he actually doesn't think that Harvard doesn't have the strongest program in his particular field and that other schools probably have better programs. But that doesn't matter to him. His career plan, once he graduates, is to go back to Turkey and take a job in a government ministry, and perhaps one day run for high political office there. The fact is, Turkish voters don't know which schools are strong in which specific programs. All they're going to see is that he has a PhD from Harvard. Hence, he made the strategic calculation that Harvard is the best school in terms of getting him what he wants out of his career.</p>

7

<p>I was working on the assumption that the OP wanted to work in her chosen field.</p>

<p>If you plan on using your degree as an ice breaker at cocktail parties or, like sakky's turkish friend, as a way to impress voters or recruiters in unrelated fields, than yes, by all means get a brand name education. I am not deabting the fact that getting a MPA from KSG will be much more beneficial to non-related areas such as consulting or I-Banking than getting one from UCSD. But if you plan on working in pacific affairs with the government and choose KSG over UCSD because of its brand power, frankly, youre an idiot (and youre also in much more debt than you would have been had you gone to UCSD).</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I was working on the assumption that the OP wanted to work in her chosen field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or that you even have the choice to work in your chosen field. For example, there are people out there with PhD's in highly specific fields who can't get jobs within that field because there are so few jobs available. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But if you plan on working in pacific affairs with the government

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that of course begs the question of, what if you want to work in pacific affairs with the government but can't get that job? While I don't know the details of the UCSD program specifically, I very strongly suspect that not everybody who graduates from that program will actually get an offer from the government to work on pacific affairs. Few if any degree programs actually provide an employment guarantee that you are going to get the job that you want. </p>

<p>Or consider the case that you may no longer be able to take the job that you initially thought you wanted because of changing life circumstances. For example, a lot of people get married during grad school, or at least find their future spouse. A significant number of people have kids during grad school. What if those circumstances now constrain you from taking the job that you thought you wanted? For example, I know a number of PhD candidates who came into their programs initially gung-ho about becoming future professors. But then they married and started having kids, and are now seriously considering taking industry jobs (because industry pays much better). </p>

<p>The salient point is that you don't know what the future is going to hold. You might not get the job that you want, and even if you do, you may not want it anymore. For example, to extend your analogy, what if you turn down KSG for UCSD because you wanted to get that government pacific affiars job, and then after you graduate, not get that job or findout later that you don't really want that job anymore (i.e. because of family circumstances)? You'd then probably like to go back in time and take KSG instead. But you can't.</p>

<p>Look, the truth is, there are a lot of successful people out there whose careers have little to do with what they actually studied in school. Career paths change all the time. It has been estimated that the average American changes careers (not just employers, but entire careers) about 4 times in their lifetimes. Hence, it is highly probable that at some time in your life, you will find yourself in a job that has little to do with what you specifically studied in school.</p>

9

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>The money alone is a reason to pick UCSD over KSG, assuming you pay full price. Name cannot always make up for fixed costs, no matter how much you apply "utils" to your argument.</p>

<p>I realize you weren't saying that, but I think you don't factor in cost enough.</p>

10

<p>Ha! You are presuming that the person in question is a California resident, when the fact is, only 11% of the country (and obviously only a tiny percentage of the world) are California residents. Hence, for the vast majority of people, UCSD in-state subsidies are irrelevent.</p>

<p>You are also assuming that one would have to pay full price (or even any price) anyway. Speaking specifically about PhD programs, the truth is, most PhD students don't pay a dime. In fact, they get paid through their doctoral stipends. Hence, there is little reason to get a PhD from KSG than from UCSD for just money savings alone. In fact, the doctoral stipends at the private schools are often times actually higher than the stipends at the public schools. The stipends at, for example, Harvard are actually unusually high for many of its doctoral programs. So in that sense, you would actually be *making more *money by choosing the private school.</p>

11

<p>You can become an in-state resident within a year.</p>

<p>But again, this argument applies to prestige vs. cost at any level. When does prestige stop being worth it? You've argued the "people don't go into the field of their choice" bit to no end, but I don't see you really exploring how much the UCSD vs. KSG degree difference matters if someone comes out of KSG with another $40K in debt. Besides, I don't really see any good reasons to go for prestige over price if you really want to pursue something. Yes, you may come out of the program doing something else, but so what? At least you gave it the old college try, and let's face it: outside of a VERY few companies, a PhD from UCSD vs. Harvard isn't going to really matter a whole lot. As much as we like to exist in our prestige bubble here on this site, the vast majority of people in the US, even those making a good salary, did not go to HYPMSC. I sincerely doubt that the earning potential of a UCSD PhD is much lower than another PhD.</p>

<p>But that wasn't the point of the OP's question, so I'll get to that now...</p>

<p>At UCSD, undergrads and grads seem to have very little interaction outside of TAing.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
You can become an in-state resident within a year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But again, this argument applies to prestige vs. cost at any level. When does prestige stop being worth it? You've argued the "people don't go into the field of their choice" bit to no end, but I don't see you really exploring how much the UCSD vs. KSG degree difference matters if someone comes out of KSG with another $40K in debt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, like I said, none of this matters if we're talking about PhD programs, for which you get paid * to attend. Even with respect to the master's degree programs, arguably the most cost-effective way to get such a master's degree is to get into the PhD program and then just walk away with a master's. Hence, instead of paying for your master's, you will be *getting paid to get your master's. </p>

<p>
[quote]
but I don't see you really exploring how much the UCSD vs. KSG degree difference matters if someone comes out of KSG with another $40K in debt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, so then let's explore it. I would argue that it can be absolutely worth it, depending on what sort of job you end up getting. For example, if you leverage your KSG degree to get a job as a Wall Street investment banker or a private equity firm, as I know some KSG people have done, then your degree paid out in spades. You can't really do that coming out of UCSD. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that it all gets down to risk aversion. Sure, if you know exactly what sort of job you want, and you know your tastes won't change, and you are sure that you actually going to be able to get that job, then you can choose a highly highly specific program. However, if you're not really that sure, or the job prospects in your field are uncertain, then you're probably better off with a highly branded school that gives you greater career flexibility. It's the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. If your aim is sharp and you know exactly where the enemy is and know that he isn't moving, choose the rifle. But if you can't really see the enemy, if he's moving around a lot, you may be better off with the shotgun.</p>

<p>Another analogy would be insurance. People pay extra for insurance in order to hedge risk away. Sure, if I don't die early, then all the money I pay for life insurance was a waste. But what if I do die early? Then, at least, my family will be provided for.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
And again, like I said, none of this matters if we're talking about PhD programs, for which you get paid to attend. Even with respect to the master's degree programs, arguably the most cost-effective way to get such a master's degree is to get into the PhD program and then just walk away with a master's. Hence, instead of paying for your master's, you will be getting paid to get your master's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A pity MA ≠ a professional master's. You know this as well as I do. You are not likely to come out of a pity MA with the same skill set as you would a professional program.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fine, so then let's explore it. I would argue that it can be absolutely worth it, depending on what sort of job you end up getting. For example, if you leverage your KSG degree to get a job as a Wall Street investment banker or a private equity firm, as I know some KSG people have done, then your degree paid out in spades. You can't really do that coming out of UCSD.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Woah, talk about a gamble. So you're saying that you should take a chance of that financial magnitude for a job you may not even want once you get out?</p>

<p>C'mon, how is that even a smart move? Oh, and plenty of IR/PSers end up in i-banking and private equity. But y'know, I wouldn't know. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, if you're not really that sure, or the job prospects in your field are uncertain, then you're probably better off with a highly branded school that gives you greater career flexibility.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But again, we're assuming that the degree is going to matter a good deal in the long run anyway. It probably doesn't, if the bajillions of studies are correct. And if you're good enough to get into hoity toity U, then you probably don't need the crutch anyway. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Another analogy would be insurance. People pay extra for insurance in order to hedge risk away. Sure, if I don't die early, then all the money I pay for life insurance was a waste. But what if I do die early? Then, at least, my family will be provided for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but how many people living in New Jersey buy earthquake insurance? How many people in LA have tornado insurance? You don't hedge against things that aren't likely to happen.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
A pity MA ≠ a professional master's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure if that's relevant. As a case in point, I know for a FACT that some doctoral students at Harvard Business School also pick up their MBA's along the way for free. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Woah, talk about a gamble. So you're saying that you should take a chance of that financial magnitude for a job you may not even want once you get out?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm simply pointing out that the situation is complex. Who knows what sort of job you are going to end up getting? UCSD (or any other school) certainly makes no guarantee that you're going to get a certain job. </p>

<p>
[quote]
C'mon, how is that even a smart move?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am saying that it MAY be a smart move because you're paying for career flexibility. A Harvard degree (or any kind) is simply more flexible than a degree from UCSD. Of course, the value of that flexibility is something each individual has to determine for himself. But certainly for some people, that flexibility is extremely valuable. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But again, we're assuming that the degree is going to matter a good deal in the long run anyway. It probably doesn't, if the bajillions of studies are correct. And if you're good enough to get into hoity toity U, then you probably don't need the crutch anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I think you DO need that "crutch" (if that is the right way to describe it). I agree that it isn't really the degree per se that probably matters, but rather, the network that you build and the job that you get that ultimately matter. But the fact of the matter is that it is easier to build a strong network and get one of those highly prized jobs if you come out of a brand-name school, regardless of what degree you get. It's nearly impossible to get into, say, Blackstone or Sequoia Capital by coming out of a no-name school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but how many people living in New Jersey buy earthquake insurance? How many people in LA have tornado insurance? You don't hedge against things that aren't likely to happen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then the question is, is it likely to happen? I would argue that is is HIGHLY likely that you will eventually one day end up in a job that has nothing to do with what you studied in college. Hence, the risk is high.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
When does prestige stop being worth it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky obviously went to one of those places that sells car window decals for lots of money :)</p>

<p>In all seriousness, outside of a very few areas, prestige stops being worth it just about the time you leave that first job after graduation. That's when your job performance starts to count! It is true that some people care if you went to Harvard (to use an example) but fellow Harvard grads (the only ones who really care) aren't that common. </p>

<p>Sakky's logic is interesting, but so internally inconsistent that I don't know where to begin. I've hesitated to jump in here, as I had hoped it was a passing fancy, but it is obviously not. So, consider a few points:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>We're talking PhD programs here. Most folks enter a PhD program because they have hopes of doing research in their chosen field. The fact that many don't end up where they originally planned is a poor argument for enrolling in a second best program just because its undergrad counterpart has a name. In fact, Sakky's strategy seems to make his whole hypothesis a self fulfilling prophecy. </p></li>
<li><p>Most folks end up in careers other than what they trained for, but not right out of college (unless they're one of those folks that sought prestige alone with no obvious other career prospects?). These career changes occur later, and often as a result of options that arise in the course of one's earlier career.</p></li>
<li><p>consulting firms? I guess Sakky does not realize that a 26 year old former engineer in a PhDprogram at MIT is not normally an attractive candidate for Bain even if they ARE interviewing at MIT. Bain et al wants either fresh undergrads or MBA candidates. Besides, how many Bain, McKinsey et al jobs are there each year? </p></li>
<li><p>many (dare I say most?) jobs for PhDs come from the networks that exist in their chosen field. The stronger the department in that field the stronger the network. Undergrad reputation has NOTHING to do with it.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Sakky has stated a position before:
[quote]
Simply put, one of the most important, and arguably THE most important reason to choose a particular college is the value of the networking. Surely we've all heard the phrase: "It's not what you know, it's who you know." Whether we like it or not, a lot of hiring, a lot of promotion, and a lot of success is determined via social networks. You are far more likely to get what you want in life if you know the right people.</p>

<p>As a simple case in point, take Steve Ballmer. Let's face it. The reason why he's the CEO of Microsoft (and therefore a billionaire) is that he was Bill Gates's old poker-playing pal in Currier House at Harvard. Simply put, if Ballmer had never gone to Harvard, he never would have met Gates, and hence, he would never have been offered the job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Other than quoting the classic Harvard line, and other than ignoring the value of such things as knowledge, Sakky seems to forget that networks exist on many levels.</p>

<p>But enough. If you like prestige, fine. I hope some people, though, recognize that the prestige game is not the only game in town. I hope some also recognize that the prestige whores tend to network among themselves. And for every Bill Gates and fellow Harvard alums, there are armies of grads from the Berkeleys, the Wisconsins and the UNCs of the worlds. Rumor has it that these folks network pretty well too!</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Sakky obviously went to one of those places that sells car window decals for lots of money

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, in my case, I didn't have to pay, so the question of 'being worth it' is irrelevant. And the truth is, many students at the brand-name schools don't have to pay. Again, take a gander at the PhD programs. Those students don't really care about their program being 'worth it', because they don't pay anything anyway. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In all seriousness, outside of a very few areas, prestige stops being worth it just about the time you leave that first job after graduation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but it's that first job that's the key, isn't it? Let's face it. If you want to get into McKinsey, or even thinking about it, there are only a select number of schools that you should be considering.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most folks enter a PhD program because they have hopes of doing research in their chosen field. The fact that many don't end up where they originally planned is a poor argument for enrolling in a second best program just because its undergrad counterpart has a name. In fact, Sakky's strategy seems to make his whole hypothesis a self fulfilling prophecy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The key word in your response is 'hope'. Sure, they HOPE to do research as a career. But I think most PhD students understand that they may not get to do that. Heck, there have been numerous threads here on CC that have documneted the difficulties that many PhD students have in getting academic positions. </p>

<p>Hence, I would hardly say that factoring in that possibility is a 'poor argument'. I would actually say it's a GREAT argument, but if nothing else, at least it's a safe, conservative argument. Most people are risk-averse, and rightfully so. Everybody needs to consider the possibility that things won't go as planned and that they'll have to end up a job in a different field. To not even consider this possibility is reckless. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Most folks end up in careers other than what they trained for, but not right out of college

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, in fact, RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE ALSO. Think of it this way. How many poli-sci majors actually end up working as political scientists right after graduation? How many sociology majors end up working as sociologists? How many math majors actually end up working as mathematicians? How many history majors become historians.</p>

<p>In fact, I would say that most of these people NEVER end up in jobs that have to do with their majors. For example, the vast majority of history majors will NEVER work as historians for a single day in their lives. Not even one day. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I guess Sakky does not realize that a 26 year old former engineer in a PhDprogram at MIT is not normally an attractive candidate for Bain even if they ARE interviewing at MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So let's look at the data. It sure seems to me that a significant number of MIT engineering PhD's ended up in consulting (or banking), as can be seen in p. 16 of the following pdf.</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation07.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation07.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
any (dare I say most?) jobs for PhDs come from the networks that exist in their chosen field. The stronger the department in that field the stronger the network. Undergrad reputation has NOTHING to do with it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, this gets down to whether you are going to end up in a job in your chosen field. If you can't or don't want to, then that highly specific network of which you speak is irrelevent. Again, if I find out that I don't want to work on pacific affairs for the government, then it doesn't really matter to me how strong the UCSD network is for those kinds of jobs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But enough. If you like prestige, fine. I hope some people, though, recognize that the prestige game is not the only game in town. I hope some also recognize that the prestige whores tend to network among themselves. And for every Bill Gates and fellow Harvard alums, there are armies of grads from the Berkeleys, the Wisconsins and the UNCs of the worlds. Rumor has it that these folks network pretty well too!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would surmise that a lot of these UNC, Berkeley, and Wisconsin people would rather be going to Harvard if given the chance. After all, why exactly does Harvard manage to beat all those other schools when it comes to yields? </p>

<p>But, to your basic point, I have never said that prestige is the only game in town. I am simply saying that prestige does have value. Everybody has to determine for himself just how much value the prestige has to him. But to make a blanket statement that prestige has no value is something I cannot support. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I have never said that everybody should choose Harvard over UCSD. What I am saying is that not everybody should choose UCSD over Harvard. What I am saying is that each school offers different features, and people need to evaluate the value of those features for themselves.</p>

17

<p>Uh, Sakky, according to your MIT link, 73% of undergrads found jobs related to their majors. I thought you said "In fact, I would say that most of these people NEVER end up in jobs that have to do with their majors. " BTW, 94% of the Masters and 90% of the Doctoral students were in fields related to their majors. You said "whether you are going to end up in a job in your chosen field. If you can't or don't want to, then that highly specific network of which you speak is irrelevent." so I guess most of these grads do think it relevant!</p>

<p>I guess the pursuit of prestige is blind to actual data. That does not surprise me. "I am simply saying that prestige does have value. " Yup. But not the undergrad kind for grad school!</p>

<p>I will bow out of this discussion. I think it has been flogged enough. Suffice to say the facts speak for themselves. I'll rely on the facts (thanks, Sakky!) rather than bold speculation. And no, Sakky, I know of folks who passed up Harvard (gasp) for places like U. Chicago and other "lesser" schools, such as Yale for Vandy.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, I have never said that everybody should choose Harvard over UCSD. What I am saying is that not everybody should choose UCSD over Harvard. What I am saying is that each school offers different features, and people need to evaluate the value of those features for themselves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think anyone said that in the first place, though. All any of us said was that if you have a specific career in mind, IR/PS makes a lot more sense than KSG.</p>

<p>Especially when you consider how FEW people get funding at KSG.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Uh, Sakky, according to your MIT link, 73% of undergrads found jobs related to their majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, I think you did not read carefully enough. </p>

<p>Consider the following quote from that pdf:</p>

<p>Seventy three percent of undergraduates and 94 percent of Master’s students indicated that
their position was related to their academic major. Nearly half of all accepted offers were
with consulting and finance firms, which may belie the preceding statement. These
employers seek out our graduate for their analytical and problem solving skills, which are
characteristic of an MIT education. To both the students and the employers, these
opportunities are directly related to academic major.</p>

<p>In other words, it's all in the matter of perception. The fact that so many MIT undergrads end up in banking or consulting (despite the fact that there really aren't THAT many undergrad students majoring in Sloan management or economics) seems to be very strong support for what I am saying - that you stand an excellent chance of not ending up in a job that is truly related to your major (regardless of whether you perceive it to be related).</p>

<p>And besides, as we all know, MIT is a rather special case either, and I only brought it up because you wanted to talk about MIT PhD's. Most MIT students are engineering or science majors, and for them, sure, most of them in fact end up working as engineers or scientists. But go to a 'regular' school like Berkeley, where social science and humanities students abound, and I think it is an open-and-shut case that most students end up in jobs unrelated to their majors. </p>

<p>Would you like some proof of that statement? </p>

<p>Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In...?
Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In...?
Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In...?
Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In...?
Career</a> Center - What Can I Do With a Major In...?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I guess the pursuit of prestige is blind to actual data. That does not surprise me. "I am simply saying that prestige does have value. " Yup. But not the undergrad kind for grad school!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, when did I ever argue that one should be blind in the pursuit of prestige? In fact, I have argued that prestige is just ONE piece of the puzzle. But to ignore the value of prestige entirely - now THAT would truly be blind.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I will bow out of this discussion. I think it has been flogged enough. Suffice to say the facts speak for themselves. I'll rely on the facts (thanks, Sakky!) rather than bold speculation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly, let's rely on the facts. The facts indicate that 43% of MIT undergrads who reported taking jobs end up in finance and consulting, yet clearly 43% of MIT undergrads are not Sloan or econ majors. What does that mean to you? Draw your own conclusion. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And no, Sakky, I know of folks who passed up Harvard (gasp) for places like U. Chicago and other "lesser" schools, such as Yale for Vandy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As do I. But they did so for specific, solid reasons, and they knew full well that there were giving up prestige. For example, I know one guy who turned down the Ivy League for his unprestigious state school. Why? Football. His state school is a perennial football powerhouse, and his dream is to make it to the NFL. In his case, I absolutely agree that he made the right choice, as relatively few Ivy players make it to the NFL. </p>

<p>Look, all I'm saying is that the situation is complex. Each person has to determine for himself how much brand name prestige means to him, based on the uncertainty of his future. For example, nobody knows if that guy above is actually going to make it to the NFL. But the possible payout involved in doing so are so high, and he probably does have a decent chance of making it (at least as a backup) that he is probably well-advised to give himself the best possible chance.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]

Quote:
Furthermore, I have never said that everybody should choose Harvard over UCSD. What I am saying is that not everybody should choose UCSD over Harvard. What I am saying is that each school offers different features, and people need to evaluate the value of those features for themselves.
I don't think anyone said that in the first place, though. All any of us said was that if you have a specific career in mind, IR/PS makes a lot more sense than KSG.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's precisely what I'm talking about. What I am saying is that even if you do have a specific career in mind, you may still be better off in choosing against the better program (but at a lower-brand-name school). Like I have tried to emphasize, just because you have a specific career in mind doesn't mean that you're actually going to get an offer for that career. even if you do go to the best possible program for that career. Furthermore, what you want may change. Lots of people go to a particular program and then find out that the job thought they wanted, they no longer want. </p>

<p>Look, if that UCSD program could actually guarantee that every single student will actually get a job offer that is related to the program, then I might be inclined to agree with you. But they can't say that. No program can. Instead, they pass the risk onto the students. The choice therefore boils down to a matter of risk allocation. Sure, the UCSD program works out very well for those students who actually get the job they want. But what about those students who don't get the job they want? What happens to them? </p>

<p>
[quote]

Especially when you consider how FEW people get funding at KSG.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am quite certain that every single KSG PhD student is funded. Furthermore, I believe there are mechanisms by which a KSG PhD student (or heck, even the PhD students at other Harvard schools) can earn a KSG professional master's for free. It certainly is true at HBS, where doctoral students have the option of earning an MBA for free. {Heck, it's better than free - you are getting paid to get your MBA.}</p>