Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?
I saw an interesting comment in the thread for the post for "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education" (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645000) that prompted me to flip the bit and ask this question.
95 comments
It never ends. Even at a "Name Brand" school you're still looking up at Harvard-Princeton-Yale. If you're there, you're looking up at the Rhodes scholars, valedictorians, and the "stars" of each department.
You have to remember that once you go to some top-rated school, you're suddenly in an environment where everyone goes to that school, and it stops being special.
Set goals that will get you to a place where you can do the kind of work that you really want to be doing. If you can achieve that, you're better off than most Ivy grads. A top school brings a few advantages, sure, but nothing that a little success can't cure, and certainly not happiness.
You have to remember that once you go to some top-rated school, you're suddenly in an environment where everyone goes to that school, and it stops being special.
Set goals that will get you to a place where you can do the kind of work that you really want to be doing. If you can achieve that, you're better off than most Ivy grads. A top school brings a few advantages, sure, but nothing that a little success can't cure, and certainly not happiness.
This is very true. I'm at a top "name brand" school for CS, and, honestly, when I look at myself next to someone from a good but less-well-known university (say, UW) who has done really interesting research, I feel inferior in a way. I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department.
What I'm trying to get at is that while being from MIT or Stanford makes a good first impression, personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process (consider this: I am a CS grad student at Stanford, and I was rejected from UMD and UMass Amherst for grad school).
What I'm trying to get at is that while being from MIT or Stanford makes a good first impression, personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process (consider this: I am a CS grad student at Stanford, and I was rejected from UMD and UMass Amherst for grad school).
I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department.
UW is a top name brand grad school for CS.
personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process
Grad school decisions at all the universities you mentioned are made by professors themselves, and they typically look for candidates who are interested in getting a PhD. Stanford's three year Master's program is career oriented.
UW is a top name brand grad school for CS.
personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process
Grad school decisions at all the universities you mentioned are made by professors themselves, and they typically look for candidates who are interested in getting a PhD. Stanford's three year Master's program is career oriented.
I'm in England, I can tell you what this is: It's the class system.
Oxbridge > Red brick university (old) > ex-Polytechnic
This could be changed of course, but the things that the Oxbridge and red bricks do so well is the networking. The societies, the sticking together, the essence of "you must be thoroughly decent and clever because I experienced that system and you did too", except the entry requirement was not smarts but whether you could afford to fund yourself through and could get through the entry requirements.
I say it could be changed because I see similar power of networks in smaller social nets. For example I see cyclists online have a great bond with other cyclists and a very strong bias towards other cyclists... to the degree of giving work to cyclists based on no other criteria than those people appearing to be qualified (but many thousands of others are) and exist in the pre-requisite community (belong to a cycling community).
So the class system can be thought of as exclusive social networks. The education itself is not the measure here, it's whether you are in the network or not.
Why this opens it to change is that the network they are in has to be exclusive, and so would a replacement, but it changes by you working with those you went to college with to build your own networks and positively discriminate towards each other. To the degree that if you have 2 candidates in front of you and 1 is MIT and one is <insert your college> you opt for your college or fellow institute over MIT.
Basically... you do have means to weaken the influence class system by discriminating positively towards your social network. Just standing by and bitching that you (not the poster, but general "you") don't belong to the advantaged network isn't going to help you, and you can't become a member of that network... you can just build a new network and make it strong.
I've perhaps over-simplified a hell of a lot of this post... it's early and I'm hungover.
Oxbridge > Red brick university (old) > ex-Polytechnic
This could be changed of course, but the things that the Oxbridge and red bricks do so well is the networking. The societies, the sticking together, the essence of "you must be thoroughly decent and clever because I experienced that system and you did too", except the entry requirement was not smarts but whether you could afford to fund yourself through and could get through the entry requirements.
I say it could be changed because I see similar power of networks in smaller social nets. For example I see cyclists online have a great bond with other cyclists and a very strong bias towards other cyclists... to the degree of giving work to cyclists based on no other criteria than those people appearing to be qualified (but many thousands of others are) and exist in the pre-requisite community (belong to a cycling community).
So the class system can be thought of as exclusive social networks. The education itself is not the measure here, it's whether you are in the network or not.
Why this opens it to change is that the network they are in has to be exclusive, and so would a replacement, but it changes by you working with those you went to college with to build your own networks and positively discriminate towards each other. To the degree that if you have 2 candidates in front of you and 1 is MIT and one is <insert your college> you opt for your college or fellow institute over MIT.
Basically... you do have means to weaken the influence class system by discriminating positively towards your social network. Just standing by and bitching that you (not the poster, but general "you") don't belong to the advantaged network isn't going to help you, and you can't become a member of that network... you can just build a new network and make it strong.
I've perhaps over-simplified a hell of a lot of this post... it's early and I'm hungover.
Indeed I do. MIT grads are automatically understood as smart. I can often convince people after a few minutes of conversation, but I do not always get those minutes.
I feel that, but I see the issue is not being as connected.
People who went to elite colleges built a valuable network, many of their friends and class mates are in big business or startups. None of my class mates are anywhere near the valley or startups.
People who went to elite colleges built a valuable network, many of their friends and class mates are in big business or startups. None of my class mates are anywhere near the valley or startups.
[deleted]
have you personally seen cases where you were discriminated against but an MIT grad was given preferential treatment? or is that just a general sentiment you're conveying?
It doesn't matter at all where you went to college, or even if you went to college.
Sure, graduating from Harvard offers some short-term advantages, but if you're motivated you can take the lead.
Consider how much time in college is wasted studying minutia for a competitive exam that has no impact on learning.
Consider how much of college is often spent stressing about stupid deadlines that really don't matter or fawning over prestigious faculty who did something noteworthy 30 years ago and have coasted since.
My advice: Do something that really matters, and take the initiative to teach yourself as you go. You are (and should be) your own harshest critic. Make it your responsibility to find others to join you in your quest (if necessary). A college campus might be a good place for you to recruit.
But certainly don't hang your head!
note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in a cutthroat name brand atmosphere.
Sure, graduating from Harvard offers some short-term advantages, but if you're motivated you can take the lead.
Consider how much time in college is wasted studying minutia for a competitive exam that has no impact on learning.
Consider how much of college is often spent stressing about stupid deadlines that really don't matter or fawning over prestigious faculty who did something noteworthy 30 years ago and have coasted since.
My advice: Do something that really matters, and take the initiative to teach yourself as you go. You are (and should be) your own harshest critic. Make it your responsibility to find others to join you in your quest (if necessary). A college campus might be a good place for you to recruit.
But certainly don't hang your head!
note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in a cutthroat name brand atmosphere.
"note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in a cutthroat name brand atmosphere."
i think it depends on the department. some smaller departments at top schools are fairly elitist in their admissions, mostly since they're based so heavily on recommendation letters. if you didn't go to a top undergrad institution, chances are they don't know who your letter writers are and might not give as much weight to your letters or application. just speculation, tho :)
i think it depends on the department. some smaller departments at top schools are fairly elitist in their admissions, mostly since they're based so heavily on recommendation letters. if you didn't go to a top undergrad institution, chances are they don't know who your letter writers are and might not give as much weight to your letters or application. just speculation, tho :)
I saw both threads and I think that you're probably wasting useful energy by dwelling on this (true or not - I don't spend much time analyzing it).
At the minimum, if you feel inferior because of something like this, try to find a way to turn it into a challenge to succeed at whatever you want to do in spite of it. There are many successful people out there with non-name brand college degrees.
At the minimum, if you feel inferior because of something like this, try to find a way to turn it into a challenge to succeed at whatever you want to do in spite of it. There are many successful people out there with non-name brand college degrees.
[deleted]
Well, it may be a little different in the UK due to our many-tiered higher education system (Oxbridge, redbricks, ex-polytechnics and a moderate spectrum in between), but I'll chip in my two copper pence either way.
Actually, this is a question I've thought about a little too much, I'd wager, because, as a prospective undergraduate, I actually turned down an offer to read mathematics at Cambridge and decided to study at the University of Bristol instead. The latter is in itself a well-regarded institute, no doubt, but it cannot be said to have anything near the Oxbridge 'name-weight' (for want of a better term).
Do I regret my choice? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The decision was very much informed by my particularly working class background - I did not believe I would have 'fit in' to the predominantly upper-middle-class culture of either the university or the city that surrounds it. In hindsight, my opinion hasn't changed at all. Bristol suffers many of the same problems as a university, but as a city it is as colourful as they come.
I believe that forgoing the 'top tier' university worked such wonders for my social development (and, hence, my subsequent happiness) that I cannot bring myself to regret it wholesale. However, I can't help but feel there's an undeniable magic that happens when a highly selective and competitive institution brings a bunch of smart, young people together to explore their interests.
Being a part of that could, as the "Disadvantages of an Elite Education" article suggests, have ended up insulating me from the 'regular world', but there is the odd occasion where I cant help but wonder what could have been if I'd chosen to experience it. Maybe that's what it takes, you know? I try not to dwell on it for long, though - I've left that to my folks!
I've not planned to become a high-ranking politician or appear on BBC Radio 4 (yet), so a non-Oxbridge education hasn't hindered me much so far... Either way, though, I'm still (relatively) young and it will be a good few years before I can evaluate these decisions with any great degree of accuracy.
We'll see, I guess.
Actually, this is a question I've thought about a little too much, I'd wager, because, as a prospective undergraduate, I actually turned down an offer to read mathematics at Cambridge and decided to study at the University of Bristol instead. The latter is in itself a well-regarded institute, no doubt, but it cannot be said to have anything near the Oxbridge 'name-weight' (for want of a better term).
Do I regret my choice? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The decision was very much informed by my particularly working class background - I did not believe I would have 'fit in' to the predominantly upper-middle-class culture of either the university or the city that surrounds it. In hindsight, my opinion hasn't changed at all. Bristol suffers many of the same problems as a university, but as a city it is as colourful as they come.
I believe that forgoing the 'top tier' university worked such wonders for my social development (and, hence, my subsequent happiness) that I cannot bring myself to regret it wholesale. However, I can't help but feel there's an undeniable magic that happens when a highly selective and competitive institution brings a bunch of smart, young people together to explore their interests.
Being a part of that could, as the "Disadvantages of an Elite Education" article suggests, have ended up insulating me from the 'regular world', but there is the odd occasion where I cant help but wonder what could have been if I'd chosen to experience it. Maybe that's what it takes, you know? I try not to dwell on it for long, though - I've left that to my folks!
I've not planned to become a high-ranking politician or appear on BBC Radio 4 (yet), so a non-Oxbridge education hasn't hindered me much so far... Either way, though, I'm still (relatively) young and it will be a good few years before I can evaluate these decisions with any great degree of accuracy.
We'll see, I guess.
Having lived in both the US and the UK, I'd observe that the prestige of one's university counts for MUCH more in the UK. To an American it is unbelieveable how much Brits focus on where they went to school (at all levels) rather than their abilities--and they are correct to do so, because other Brits use schools and universities as vital credentials. It's an aspect of the class system in the UK which doesn't exist in the same way in the US (note also the discussion of "working class background" versus "upper middle class culture"--not at all the same in the US). Someone from the UK might well obsess about a degree from an elite university, but in the US any good degree gets you over the threshold and able to compete on equal terms.
Yes, Brits may put more focus on which university you go to, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
In the UK, getting into Oxbridge is nowhere near as difficult as getting into Harvard, Yale, Princeton. There are 24,000 undergraduate spots at Oxbridge for 60 million Brits, compared to 17,000 spots at HYP for 300 million Americans.
Also, the application criteria at Oxbridge is far simpler. It is based entirely on academic potential. British universities are uninterested in extracurricular activities and "well-roundedness". In the US, very smart students with perfect grades are rejected from Harvard because they weren't editor of the school newspaper, because they got a D in History in 9th grade, or because they couldn't write a good essay about "If you were going to sing a song in a talent show, what would you sing and why?" That doesn't happen in the UK. If you are smart, work hard in school and get good grades, you'll get into Oxbridge. The same can't be said for getting into HYP.
All of the British universities are public, so there doesn't exist the situation where students may choose to go to Berkeley instead of UPenn because they want to save money, or because they were offered a scholarship.
Which university you attend in the UK tends to be a better indicator of intelligence and academic success than where you study in the US.
In the UK, getting into Oxbridge is nowhere near as difficult as getting into Harvard, Yale, Princeton. There are 24,000 undergraduate spots at Oxbridge for 60 million Brits, compared to 17,000 spots at HYP for 300 million Americans.
Also, the application criteria at Oxbridge is far simpler. It is based entirely on academic potential. British universities are uninterested in extracurricular activities and "well-roundedness". In the US, very smart students with perfect grades are rejected from Harvard because they weren't editor of the school newspaper, because they got a D in History in 9th grade, or because they couldn't write a good essay about "If you were going to sing a song in a talent show, what would you sing and why?" That doesn't happen in the UK. If you are smart, work hard in school and get good grades, you'll get into Oxbridge. The same can't be said for getting into HYP.
All of the British universities are public, so there doesn't exist the situation where students may choose to go to Berkeley instead of UPenn because they want to save money, or because they were offered a scholarship.
Which university you attend in the UK tends to be a better indicator of intelligence and academic success than where you study in the US.
Wow, I genuinely never knew that about the UK. It's strange how the flood of information on US universities drowns out everything else.
From what your saying, that makes Oxbridge rather attractive for many people on this site, who were never interested in being "well-rounded" just for the sake of university admission.
From what your saying, that makes Oxbridge rather attractive for many people on this site, who were never interested in being "well-rounded" just for the sake of university admission.
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. To be honest, I didn't even know how important the class system had remained in this country until I went to university - I had never met a privately educated person in my life, and suddenly I was surrounded by them!
However, I do think that the emphasis on the prestige of one's university in this country (these days, at least) largely stems from a good decade or so of policies pushing perhaps less-than-ideal candidates into higher education. The replacement of vocational training with degree-level equivalents has in many ways depreciated the whole university process, leaving employers necessarily needing to look for the 'value' of a degree anywhere they can.
However, I do think that the emphasis on the prestige of one's university in this country (these days, at least) largely stems from a good decade or so of policies pushing perhaps less-than-ideal candidates into higher education. The replacement of vocational training with degree-level equivalents has in many ways depreciated the whole university process, leaving employers necessarily needing to look for the 'value' of a degree anywhere they can.
I'm from France and this is even worse than in the UK here. Matter of fact, a lot of people go work in the UK because its more merit based than France.
It isn't exactly ideal in the US, but I can confirm that in the UK (and in almost all other countries, really) even more emphasis is placed on credentials.
Currently a Warwick student. It's a great university, and I'm glad I chose to come here than try to apply for Oxbridge - I believe they are the best universities in the UK, but not by such a massive margin as people make out. If you say you're an Oxford student, anyone in the country will be impressed. Many people will not have heard of Warwick or Bristol university, or will assume they are just bog-standard institutions.
I have to disagree, though, with the comment that anyone with brains can get into Oxbridge - from what I've heard, they seem much more obsessed with preliminary interviews than other UK institutions - potential applicants stay for several days of interviews IIRC. Many private school kids get special tuition to pass these tests, which is an advantage that state school kids don't have.
I have to disagree, though, with the comment that anyone with brains can get into Oxbridge - from what I've heard, they seem much more obsessed with preliminary interviews than other UK institutions - potential applicants stay for several days of interviews IIRC. Many private school kids get special tuition to pass these tests, which is an advantage that state school kids don't have.
Even Bristol probably has issues. When I was choosing Universities I heard that for Bristol, the filtering for remaining places on the medicine course (i.e. for people who didn't make the grades the University asked for) was rumoured to start with these two questions:
1. Did you go to public school? (i.e. privately educated) 2. Was either of your parents a doctor?
If you answered either of those with 'no', then the concensus was you could kiss that place goodbye.
1. Did you go to public school? (i.e. privately educated) 2. Was either of your parents a doctor?
If you answered either of those with 'no', then the concensus was you could kiss that place goodbye.
In what ways do you regret your choice? It wasn't clear from your comments.
Also, Bristol is a lovely city.
Also, Bristol is a lovely city.
I go to a "name brand" college (Carnegie Mellon, you can disagree if you'd like) and there are LOTS of CS majors who don't know anything. Likewise I've worked with people from state schools who know exactly what they're doing. Anyone who associates eliteness with where an undergrad degree was obtained is wrong.
The only plus side to name-brand colleges is well known professors, but most of learning is self-motivation anyway.
The only plus side to name-brand colleges is well known professors, but most of learning is self-motivation anyway.
> I go to a "name brand" college (Carnegie Mellon, you can disagree if you'd like) and there are LOTS of CS majors who don't know anything.
That was my impression of ECE at Purdue University (a top 10 graduate school at the time, unsure of undergrad ranking). Most undergrads were incapable of functioning as engineers. I taught two different senior-level courses while I was there. The top students were excellent, as you would expect. The rest hobbled along. I had seniors who couldn't approximate the gain of an op-amp or make a common-emitter amplifier. Not one of the senior design students bothered to simulate their circuits before building them (and frying them). They had no idea how to test a circuit once they built it.
I actually credit the undergrads' ineptitude to the curriculum. Purdue has lots of classroom instruction but very few labs. I had approximately double the number of labs as an undergrad at the University of Arkansas. Even the worst students were capable of building and testing a circuit, whereas the Purdue students would expect the TA to do their testing for them.
That was my impression of ECE at Purdue University (a top 10 graduate school at the time, unsure of undergrad ranking). Most undergrads were incapable of functioning as engineers. I taught two different senior-level courses while I was there. The top students were excellent, as you would expect. The rest hobbled along. I had seniors who couldn't approximate the gain of an op-amp or make a common-emitter amplifier. Not one of the senior design students bothered to simulate their circuits before building them (and frying them). They had no idea how to test a circuit once they built it.
I actually credit the undergrads' ineptitude to the curriculum. Purdue has lots of classroom instruction but very few labs. I had approximately double the number of labs as an undergrad at the University of Arkansas. Even the worst students were capable of building and testing a circuit, whereas the Purdue students would expect the TA to do their testing for them.
I only feel inferior when I haven't done enough to maximize my potential.
that's probably the most healthy attitude ;)
i suppose it's harder when you are around people from name-brand colleges, no?
if nobody around you went to a name-brand college, then of course there's no point of reference
i suppose it's harder when you are around people from name-brand colleges, no?
if nobody around you went to a name-brand college, then of course there's no point of reference
[deleted]
No, but I have felt inferior for not going to college. For a variety of mostly personal reasons, it didn't seem like a life-enhancing decision at the time (~25 years ago, in Ireland).
I invented ___ is way more compelling than I went to ____.
I was recently re-reading the "regrets" pamphlet by n+1 magazine (link at bottom) where the premise was to get a round-table discussion of some "intellectuals" and ask them what they regret about their education in order to provide a guide for current students in ideas of "literature, philosophy, and thought."
Some of the participants went to the Ivy League, but all of them went to highly respectable schools. There were a few points that I'd like to share.
Quite a few of the participants had a feeling like they screwed up big time in choices in their education. Not necessarily about the choice of school, but in, for example, choosing the English department instead of Literature and end up studying Theory rather than readings and after a few years they found out they missed out on Anna Karenina in favor of Foucault. This was to the extent that some of them claimed to go to masters school to make up for what they didn't do as an undergraduate, and regretted that too.
Another idea that they quickly agreed on is that the very nature of a regret is to notice what choices you should have made, and clearly it is too late to do anything about it. Yet, some of the participants were reluctant to even call them regrets. How can you call your life a regret? This is a group of people where there was no question that reading the right book at the right time would (and did) change their life, and it really wasn't a question of "for better or worse", but they would learn their lessons and are the better for it.
I suppose I'm talking about making decisions, reflecting on those decisions over time (sometimes it takes years, decades even), and then gaining a modicum of wisdom.
Feeling inferior would seem to me a common sentiment. Hasn't everyone had this feeling before? You feel like you missed out on something you may have not known existed until you had the years to figure out it was even there. Yet, I don't think you should deny yourself the line of thought that this would take you down, and it may take a long time, but I think you need to turn these feelings around to find a genuine calling/relaxedness of what you are here to do.
No affiliation with the publishers, but I highly recommend the $9 "What We Should Have Known: Two Discussions" (aka regrets) pamphlet: http://www.nplusonemag.com/pamphlet-two. It is well worth the money, especially if you are in the situation where you think you might be ready to hear their advice.
Some of the participants went to the Ivy League, but all of them went to highly respectable schools. There were a few points that I'd like to share.
Quite a few of the participants had a feeling like they screwed up big time in choices in their education. Not necessarily about the choice of school, but in, for example, choosing the English department instead of Literature and end up studying Theory rather than readings and after a few years they found out they missed out on Anna Karenina in favor of Foucault. This was to the extent that some of them claimed to go to masters school to make up for what they didn't do as an undergraduate, and regretted that too.
Another idea that they quickly agreed on is that the very nature of a regret is to notice what choices you should have made, and clearly it is too late to do anything about it. Yet, some of the participants were reluctant to even call them regrets. How can you call your life a regret? This is a group of people where there was no question that reading the right book at the right time would (and did) change their life, and it really wasn't a question of "for better or worse", but they would learn their lessons and are the better for it.
I suppose I'm talking about making decisions, reflecting on those decisions over time (sometimes it takes years, decades even), and then gaining a modicum of wisdom.
Feeling inferior would seem to me a common sentiment. Hasn't everyone had this feeling before? You feel like you missed out on something you may have not known existed until you had the years to figure out it was even there. Yet, I don't think you should deny yourself the line of thought that this would take you down, and it may take a long time, but I think you need to turn these feelings around to find a genuine calling/relaxedness of what you are here to do.
No affiliation with the publishers, but I highly recommend the $9 "What We Should Have Known: Two Discussions" (aka regrets) pamphlet: http://www.nplusonemag.com/pamphlet-two. It is well worth the money, especially if you are in the situation where you think you might be ready to hear their advice.
I feel inferior reading this article instead of coding.
Upmod, but you should feel inferior for not thinking, not for not coding. You are not a code monkey, but a thinking problem solver, whatever your label is (engineer, scientist, technician, CEO, whatever).
That remembers me Sir Popper wrote a book "All of Life is Problem Solving." Got to read it some time...
That remembers me Sir Popper wrote a book "All of Life is Problem Solving." Got to read it some time...
Here is the comment you're referring to: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645316
I want to add that even if you personally don't feel inferior about it, you'll probably still feel something when you know someone else is judging you for it.
And of course, sometimes it doesn't even matter how you feel. You are at a disadvantage regardless.
As I said in the other thread, college degrees today are titles of nobility by definition, thanks to state support. Titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished.
I want to add that even if you personally don't feel inferior about it, you'll probably still feel something when you know someone else is judging you for it.
And of course, sometimes it doesn't even matter how you feel. You are at a disadvantage regardless.
As I said in the other thread, college degrees today are titles of nobility by definition, thanks to state support. Titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished.
People happen to judge you by where you went, where you didn't go, or at pretty much any whimsical idea they happen to come up with. You can't control that and you shouldn't either because if you do then you're just playing somebody else's game and not your own.
You're not here to fish for acceptance by pleasing people in random positions of prestige. If you feel inferior, the quest is to learn to ignore it and find your own worth yourself. Then nothing can make you feel like crap because you know better anyway. Nobody needs to feel like crap because he didn't go to institution X, Y, or Z. (And because of many other things as well.)
You also don't need each and every possible advantage to yourself as if you couldn't make it otherwise. You just need enough and if you know enough to be able to help people, you'll surely get them.
You're not here to fish for acceptance by pleasing people in random positions of prestige. If you feel inferior, the quest is to learn to ignore it and find your own worth yourself. Then nothing can make you feel like crap because you know better anyway. Nobody needs to feel like crap because he didn't go to institution X, Y, or Z. (And because of many other things as well.)
You also don't need each and every possible advantage to yourself as if you couldn't make it otherwise. You just need enough and if you know enough to be able to help people, you'll surely get them.
what do you mean by "thanks to state support"? please clarify, thanks.
The state confers special privileges on degree holders that are denied to everyone else. It also regulates, funds, and grants degrees itself.
Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility.
Of course, there are also the more "unofficial" effects of these policies. Credentialism is widespread in society thanks in no small part to the massive, state-funded school system.
Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility.
Of course, there are also the more "unofficial" effects of these policies. Credentialism is widespread in society thanks in no small part to the massive, state-funded school system.
That doesn't make it a title of nobility, especially since the government also grants things like military commissions, presidential medals of freedom, and appointments to high positions all the time, all of which are more similar to titles of nobility than university degrees.
Either you're speaking metaphorically or you're pushing some crank theory, I can't tell which.
Either you're speaking metaphorically or you're pushing some crank theory, I can't tell which.
Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition:
"A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people."
If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.
"A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people."
If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.
Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by any means.
Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.
Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.
The police officer definition rather sounds like the definition of a knight(knights were required to keep the peace in their territories), except a knight got land instead of a pay check. And yeah minor elected officials carry out the same duties that minor lords carried out in their day. The primary difference between nobility and modern authority is duration, legal status and lineage.
[deleted]
You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you.
I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama:
"To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142."
Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.
I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama:
"To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142."
Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.
The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional.
Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense).
As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
http://xkcd.com/169/
Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.
Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place.
If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.)
There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.
Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness.
Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place.
If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.)
There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.
philwelch, I tried to talk with you here but it seems like you insult me at every turn, and now you're trying to blame me for your invalid, US-centric assumptions.
This seems to be a habit of yours, because even in this post, twice you claim that I'm "undoubtedly" about to respond in a certain way. Perhaps if you read what I write without jumping to conclusions about what must be in my head, this would be more productive.
"our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery."
You appear to continue with your US-centric perspective here. And even with that perspective, so what? The fact that it had slavery sounds like a good reason not to take what was "meant" as gospel.
As for legal egalitarianism being impossible, that's certainly not true. I'm not sure why you believe that.
This seems to be a habit of yours, because even in this post, twice you claim that I'm "undoubtedly" about to respond in a certain way. Perhaps if you read what I write without jumping to conclusions about what must be in my head, this would be more productive.
"our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery."
You appear to continue with your US-centric perspective here. And even with that perspective, so what? The fact that it had slavery sounds like a good reason not to take what was "meant" as gospel.
As for legal egalitarianism being impossible, that's certainly not true. I'm not sure why you believe that.
I tried to talk to you, but it turns out you consistently mean something different from what you say. For once, I'd like you to clearly and literally state, just once, what you're on about instead of going in circles.
In particular, the onus is on you to clearly define what "legal egalitarianism" means, why college degrees violate that principle, and why we should care. That's an honest discussion. Trying to cleverly redefine terms like "nobility" isn't.
In particular, the onus is on you to clearly define what "legal egalitarianism" means, why college degrees violate that principle, and why we should care. That's an honest discussion. Trying to cleverly redefine terms like "nobility" isn't.
This is an interesting argument. Do you have an alternative method in mind for aiding people to figure out who might be qualified to perform certain types of skilled labor?
For example, imagine that universities can no longer confer the noble title of medical doctor. How shall I determine who to select to remove my gallbladder?
For example, imagine that universities can no longer confer the noble title of medical doctor. How shall I determine who to select to remove my gallbladder?
Yes, and I'm sure others will, too. For example, perhaps, after the barriers have been removed, a new school has popped up which has a better way of training doctors. They are allowed to teach in ways that were not allowed before. Doctors from this school go on to perform exceptionally well and have a proven track record. You hear about them from satisfied patients and ratings organizations (like Consumer Reports). Their medical procedures are insured by a company that also highly recommends them. You select one of them.
Or, perhaps you prefer some sort of alternative medicine. Using whatever criteria you choose, you are allowed to have a procedure done regardless of whether or not your doctor has a title. After all, the majority is wrong sometimes.
Or, perhaps you prefer some sort of alternative medicine. Using whatever criteria you choose, you are allowed to have a procedure done regardless of whether or not your doctor has a title. After all, the majority is wrong sometimes.
It seems that all that this does is shift the effective grant of title of nobility from the university to Consumer Reports or to the insurance company or to Yelp-for-doctors.
No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else.
Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecting legal barriers for others. That doesn't happen in this scenario.
Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecting legal barriers for others. That doesn't happen in this scenario.
> First, there isn't any reason there would only be one
> ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp
> for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the
> rating of any person or organization, and so would
> everyone else.
Now, as for your point about eliminating the legal barriers to practice-- ie anyone can practice medicine-- while removing licensing would eliminate direct legal action (ie no going to jail for practicing medicine without a license) I think it would instead lead to increased civil suits. Consider: right now if a licensed physician is prone to malpractice or has other deficiencies they are forbidden from practicing. This can happen without anyone being actually harmed. On the other hand, if a physician gets bad ratings from yelp-for-doctors then they just need to find uninformed consumers or at least people who chose to disregard those ratings. When members of the public are inevitably harmed by poor doctoring they will have no legal recourse but to sue the doctor. True, they could avoid going to that particular doctor again, but the damage is already done. I'm not sure if we actually want more lawsuits to be brought against professionals-- it may end up making the cost of their services even more expensive than they are now, wiping out any cost savings from them not having to go to school and become licensed.
I guess my point is that there is no free lunch: guilds and professional societies are ancient institutions and they enjoy legal status in recognition for the useful role that they have in serving society. It may be fun to speculate what would happen if they vanished but don't be surprised if the institutions that arise to replace them necessarily gain the properties of the original institutions.
"I suspect that whatever ratings mechanisms develop to fill the void, they would eventually coalesce into a single entity"
I know you're speculating, but I don't think that's realistic. For that to happen, people would have to unanimously agree on a single rating mechanism.
As for doctors, their guild gives us a great example of what actually happens when guilds enjoy special legal status. Guilds and professional societies work to restrict entry into their fields, in order to prop up their own salaries. When they do this, they usually claim they are simply ensuring high quality.
I know you're speculating, but I don't think that's realistic. For that to happen, people would have to unanimously agree on a single rating mechanism.
As for doctors, their guild gives us a great example of what actually happens when guilds enjoy special legal status. Guilds and professional societies work to restrict entry into their fields, in order to prop up their own salaries. When they do this, they usually claim they are simply ensuring high quality.
> Examples include [degree] credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility.
Many? I can come up with law, medicine, professional engineer, architect, and CPA. What else do you have in mind?
Many? I can come up with law, medicine, professional engineer, architect, and CPA. What else do you have in mind?
Teachers have degree requirements for licensing. I am sure there are others.
How about some more? Adding "teacher" to my list leaves us closer to "few" than "many".
Note that the vast majority of engineers aren't licensed....
Note that the vast majority of engineers aren't licensed....
going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility."
Licensing laws cover plumbers, electricians, massage therapists,barbers, air conditioning contractors, auctioneers, boxing (judges, promoter, referees, boxers themselves, managers), cosmetologist(and their schools), tow truck drivers, moving companies, temp agencies, elevator contractors and inspectors.
Licensing laws cover plumbers, electricians, massage therapists,barbers, air conditioning contractors, auctioneers, boxing (judges, promoter, referees, boxers themselves, managers), cosmetologist(and their schools), tow truck drivers, moving companies, temp agencies, elevator contractors and inspectors.
>> going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility."
Yes, let's. One of the claims was that there were credential requirements for many different occupations. (Licensing for other things is a separate claim.) I've listed a couple of examples and we're nowhere near many.
I'm perfectly willing to agree that state imposed licensing is widespread, but that's a separate claim. I note that licensing is largely independent of public supported schools.
Yes, let's. One of the claims was that there were credential requirements for many different occupations. (Licensing for other things is a separate claim.) I've listed a couple of examples and we're nowhere near many.
I'm perfectly willing to agree that state imposed licensing is widespread, but that's a separate claim. I note that licensing is largely independent of public supported schools.
all of these name-brand colleges are private, so if the state has a role in all of this, it's quite indirect, right? of course the government has a role in accredidation, grants, laws, etc., but it's hard to imagine eliminating those ... sorry, i don't want to get into a debate on libertarianism ;)
Well, they are private in name only. They are massively funded by the state, both directly and indirectly through exclusive student funding grants. The degrees they grant have the same special status as those granted by "public" schools, and they are regulated the same way.
I don't think this is an exclusively libertarian issue. Your original question could be generalized to include all titles of nobility, and that seems relevant because one of the purposes of such titles is to make titleholders feel superior, thereby making others feel inferior. In other words, you don't have to be a libertarian to oppose titles of nobility.
I don't think this is an exclusively libertarian issue. Your original question could be generalized to include all titles of nobility, and that seems relevant because one of the purposes of such titles is to make titleholders feel superior, thereby making others feel inferior. In other words, you don't have to be a libertarian to oppose titles of nobility.
Except for hillsdale college in Michigan which makes a point of taking zero government dollars for anything, including scholarships. Not huge, but truly private. http://www.hillsdale.edu/support/default.asp
That's laudable, but it looks like the college still has state-approved accreditation, so what I said still applies.
I took 'brand name' to mean any college with an excellent reputation in its field, not just the private Ivy League colleges. A degree in physics from UC Berkeley (semi-public) is nothing to sneeze at, for example.
I have stopped to. Thought I don't get excellent facilities, or a good geek crowd as name-brand colleges have here in India, I've started to believe in myself... ever since I did some freelance web design last year, and got myself into computer security related intern this summer, I've been more confident over my belief that "brand name doesn't matter, if I have skills and confidence over what I know, I can surely find the best for myself"
Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college? - Yes, in the beginning of my college days, when people would ask me which college are you from? I would tell, and they would go... hmm haven't heard the name... okay.. whtever.
Do you feel inferior for not being... ? NO way, I wish to be a grand brand myself, why the heck attach branding n stuff to college, be the name, influence, etc yourself :)
Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college? - Yes, in the beginning of my college days, when people would ask me which college are you from? I would tell, and they would go... hmm haven't heard the name... okay.. whtever.
Do you feel inferior for not being... ? NO way, I wish to be a grand brand myself, why the heck attach branding n stuff to college, be the name, influence, etc yourself :)
I usually try not to compare myself to others too much (too many variables in life experiences make such comparisons difficult anyway). But if anything, I feel superior for having accomplished what I have with graduating from a "no-name-brand" school.
> But if anything, I feel superior for having accomplished what I have with graduating from a "no-name-brand" school.
I am motivated to try harder at work because I feel like I'm fighting for all smaller school graduates in a company full of Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Illinois, Harvard, CMU, and Michigan grads. I also ensure that everybody knows where I came from with a huge Razorback flag on my wall.
I am motivated to try harder at work because I feel like I'm fighting for all smaller school graduates in a company full of Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Illinois, Harvard, CMU, and Michigan grads. I also ensure that everybody knows where I came from with a huge Razorback flag on my wall.
I feel superior for not following the system and even going to college to rack up debt to get a piece of paper.
People rarely ask what college you went to. A name-brand degree is just a pissing match that doesn't matter.
4 years of outdated assignments won't much of a difference further out in your life. The value of the paper you went into debt to get is going down every day.
People rarely ask what college you went to. A name-brand degree is just a pissing match that doesn't matter.
4 years of outdated assignments won't much of a difference further out in your life. The value of the paper you went into debt to get is going down every day.
Every time I apply for a job, my engineering degree cuts out two or three annoying questions (which they might not even bother to ask before throwing my CV away).
I'm thinking about moving to Hong Kong. A masters degree makes immigration trivial.
Sometimes I find that an interesting problem is related to something I studied in college and so I know where to start.
When I meet the parents of the girls I date I start with a few extra points of reputation in hand.
Each time I sit more professional exams the whole process is well within my comfort zone so I can concentrate on the material rather than stress about the outcome.
Not a bad investment if you ask me - although no one has asked me where I went to school in years either.
I'm thinking about moving to Hong Kong. A masters degree makes immigration trivial.
Sometimes I find that an interesting problem is related to something I studied in college and so I know where to start.
When I meet the parents of the girls I date I start with a few extra points of reputation in hand.
Each time I sit more professional exams the whole process is well within my comfort zone so I can concentrate on the material rather than stress about the outcome.
Not a bad investment if you ask me - although no one has asked me where I went to school in years either.
A more important question than whether you feel inferior is whether you are inferior. The answer to that one is "no".
If you feel inferior, but aren't inferior, then the problem is your feelings. Change them.
If you feel inferior, but aren't inferior, then the problem is your feelings. Change them.
I compliment colleagues and friends who have CS degrees, and deprecate myself about it out loud, but I secretly don't feel the least bit inferior. In fact, I kind of enjoy the drop-out hacker makes good story.
No, and I'm not even from a non-name-brand college. I am confident in my abilities and seem to be adequately respected among my peers who know me. That's good enough for me.
[deleted]
I hardly goto an inferior college(UNC-Chapel Hill). But I am studying what is considered an inferior major(communications).
I love it! When I tell my friend of my major, they roll their eyes in disbelief. But then I tell them of all my classes with the basketball players and they are quickly envying me:) That aside, I am studying rhetorical studies and truly enjoy it!
I love it! When I tell my friend of my major, they roll their eyes in disbelief. But then I tell them of all my classes with the basketball players and they are quickly envying me:) That aside, I am studying rhetorical studies and truly enjoy it!
[deleted]
You have class with Psycho T?!
Hell yeah! My first debate in speech/debate was against Tyler and Bobby. Of course I won but damn they were pretty good:)
http://zaid.posterous.com/tyler-hansborough-is-talllllllllll...
http://zaid.posterous.com/tyler-hansborough-is-talllllllllll...
Well, I choose public rather then Ivy, but it's not far behind. I generally feel better because I choose to get a similar education without going massively into debt. I figured I'd be going for a masters, at which point it wouldn't matter.
At some point in time, I'm still thinking about getting a masters ... but Penn State would be a lot easier to get a company to pay for.
At some point in time, I'm still thinking about getting a masters ... but Penn State would be a lot easier to get a company to pay for.
For what it's worth, I have a friend at Lockheed right now and they are paying for her master's at UPenn.
I wouldn't say I've felt inferior. I've occasionally felt significant regret over my collegiate decision. But then I remember that most such people wind up paying $200k more than I did to go to college. Going to an MIT or Harvard might have gotten me somewhat better connections and opportunities, but it is difficult to see those as adding up to that large of a difference.
Rarely do most people who go to top schools pay full price. Only those from extremely wealthy families do.
All (yes, all) the top schools are need-blind, meaning they don't look at your financial situation when deciding whether to accept you. A few of them (Stanford, Harvard I think) are offering completely free tuition if your parents make less than $100k. For other situations, you typically would get around 75% of your tuition free even if your parents make over $100k a year.
The difference in first year average salary for an MIT grad vs. a state school grad is enough to make up that difference.
All (yes, all) the top schools are need-blind, meaning they don't look at your financial situation when deciding whether to accept you. A few of them (Stanford, Harvard I think) are offering completely free tuition if your parents make less than $100k. For other situations, you typically would get around 75% of your tuition free even if your parents make over $100k a year.
The difference in first year average salary for an MIT grad vs. a state school grad is enough to make up that difference.
"Rarely do most people who go to top schools pay full price"
The fact that you have to state that shows there is an issue with information.
I scored really high my SAT/ACT (and again on my GRE I scored perfect in 2 of the 3 categories - in English I was weaker). But I didn't grow up with friends/family who went to top schools, and growing up in eastern kentucky, my public school didn't let me know that I should be applying to "good" schools.
I think that many computer geeks grow up having a hard time fitting in at school, so they don't think that they have what it takes to go to the elite schools - especially if that geeks grows up poor in a rural setting.
The fact that you have to state that shows there is an issue with information.
I scored really high my SAT/ACT (and again on my GRE I scored perfect in 2 of the 3 categories - in English I was weaker). But I didn't grow up with friends/family who went to top schools, and growing up in eastern kentucky, my public school didn't let me know that I should be applying to "good" schools.
I think that many computer geeks grow up having a hard time fitting in at school, so they don't think that they have what it takes to go to the elite schools - especially if that geeks grows up poor in a rural setting.
Most of these pro-rated tuition policies are very, very new; until very recently, even students at top schools were expected to take out loans to cover some medium-sized fraction of the tuition costs. By comparison, going to a rather good state school, I got paid a net of around $8k per year to go to college.
The financial equation is different for every person, but the value add of a name-brand school over a state school is typically a hard sell--for a motivated student a decent education is available everywhere.
The financial equation is different for every person, but the value add of a name-brand school over a state school is typically a hard sell--for a motivated student a decent education is available everywhere.
About financial aid: the previous year my parents had made at least 80k, and that's generally how people judge your need. The year I picked schools one of them had lost their job and my family was at below sustainability levels.
That being said, I got an excellent scholarship for the college I went to. But I still regret not going to a "name-brand" school independent of the educational quality of the college. The kind of people you're around and the contacts you make are really different. That can be useful on an ongoing basis, not just right after you graduate.
That being said, I got an excellent scholarship for the college I went to. But I still regret not going to a "name-brand" school independent of the educational quality of the college. The kind of people you're around and the contacts you make are really different. That can be useful on an ongoing basis, not just right after you graduate.
As somebody who has never regretted dropping out in high school I find this whole conversation pretty amusing.
Never.
I don't know what doors were never open to me because of my college.
I do know that for every door I did enter, it was only a matter of time before the only thing that really mattered was demonstrated performance.
If more people would just forget about B.S. like "pedigree" and focus on delivering value to their customers, we'd all be better off.
I don't know what doors were never open to me because of my college.
I do know that for every door I did enter, it was only a matter of time before the only thing that really mattered was demonstrated performance.
If more people would just forget about B.S. like "pedigree" and focus on delivering value to their customers, we'd all be better off.
[deleted]
What do people find when they Google your name?
Sometimes I feel inferior to those that went to school at all. But then it passes and I realize I have no loans to pay back.
No. Do you think math is different at Yale or something?