What's more telling? School or Degree Program....From the other forum

[rebel100]

Caught this over on the "other forum" and figured I would share it here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grad...our-major/

Essentially the piece tries to address what matters most the school you go to or the degree you pursued. Not surprisingly, there are a bunch of pretty well known colleges at the top of the list. Top 20 seem to be a mix of the elites with a heavy dose of schools that focus on specific in demand vocational fields like maritime academies and STEM (Engineering really) schools.

Steve Foerester pointed out that they left out the individual, the person's independent drive and ability to network....certainly true and deserving of consideration.

The piece also pointed out that those with Masters fared better overall than those with Bachelors alone.

Just food for thought/discussion.

[sanantone]

Aught this over on the "other forum" and figured I would share it here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grad...our-major/

Essentially the piece tries to address what matters most the school you go to or the degree you pursued. Not surprisingly, there are a bunch of pretty well known colleges at the top of the list. Top 20 seem to be a mix of the elites with a heavy dose of schools that focus on specific in demand vocational fields like maritime academies and STEM (Engineering really) schools.

Steve Foerester pointed out that they left out the individual, the person's independent drive and ability to network....certainly true and deserving of consideration.

The piece also pointed out that those with Masters fared better overall than those with Bachelors alone.

Just food for thought/discussion.

They did find out that major had somewhat of an impact and so did experience. The top schools also had a lot of people who went on to graduate school, so that is why they had higher salaries. They did mention that individual factors, such as SAT/ACT scores, could have an effect, but they needed more data.

[Leherself]

I think some of this might be an attribution error. Part of the reason people from top tier schools make more money than the average is because they're the sort of people who go to top tier schools - i.e. exceptionally academically qualified, well connected, more affluent than average, etc. The reason they do better is the reason they got into a school like Harvard in the first place - they don't do better because they attended, they were already likely to do better before they even got in.

People like to talk about how attending the Ivies is a networking opportunity - but why? College students can network with other college students at any college, right? Part of what makes the Ivies different is where the students come from - their families, friends, colleagues, etc. The average Ivy league student already has a better network than most Americans before they ever go. The caliber of the students themselves matters also, of course, but it's hardly the only factor.

Honestly, even what you major in isn't all that predictive of your future. Sure, if you get highly qualified in a up and coming technical field, and then you're a go-getter in your career, then that'll matter. But someone with the fanciest degree in the world will fall on their butt if they don't know how to work, and someone with no degree at all can go out and kill it. If anything, some of the people who have dropped out of the Ivies are perfect examples of my earlier point. Elon Musk (Stanford), Bill Gates (Harvard), etc. got into those schools because of the kinds of people they were - and they succeeded beyond all reason without even graduating.

People keep wanting to hold up a university education as a pat answer to everything. "Just go here, and do this, and everything will work out for you." Life's just not that simple.

[High_Order1]

I don't know if this makes an off topic more off topic....


One of my primary concerns was the name of the school. Now, in my culture, there are certain name brands, and you can be snubbed if you don't ascribe to them.

For instance, ITT Tech doesn't have a good reputation around here, compared, to, oh, say, the University of Tennessee.

I thought there was validity to determining the value of an education by the facility. Now I am beginning to see that there are different paths to the same result. But, I wonder if articles like the one mentioned (didn't read) doesn't enforce these kinds of stereotypes, even though in some cases a stereotype can be somewhat rooted in the truth?

Definitely food for thought.

High Order

[rebel100]

I suspect UT trump's ITT just about everywhere.

[dfrecore]

Just about ANY school is better than ITT Tech. Our local CC is better than ITT, and I can't imagine a 4-year school that wasn't better.

[sanantone]

Everest and Westwood are competitors for the worst, accredited schools, but Everest was sold and Westwood is shutting down. University of Phoenix has the worst reputation for a regionally accredited school (some Everest locations were RA though). Devry is close behind.

[rebel100]

Just about ANY school is better than ITT Tech. Our local CC is better than ITT, and I can't imagine a 4-year school that wasn't better.

I don't think there is anything you and I don't agree on more than this mutual disdain for the "bad" for profits.