NY Times gives bad advice to college bound students

Yesterday's NY Times has some incredibly bad advice for college bound high school students, telling them to not seek a spot in the most prestigious colleges:

Higher education experts have this message for those squabbling over a handful of spots: you’re probably not going to room with the next president anyway. Pay less attention to prestige and more to “fit” — the marriage of interests and comfort level with factors like campus size, access to professors, instruction philosophy.

In case any high school students are reading this, let me give some better advice. When you're looking for a job, employers aren't going to give a crap about whether you "fit" your college or not. They just care about the degree, and a degree from Harvard looks a hell of a lot better than some bogus college where you "fit" better.

Comments

[JewishAtheist]

Depending on your field, it might make a LOT of sense to go to a good state school rather than pay for an ivy education. Starting life $160,000 in debt has a way of narrowing your options.

[Peter]

The best advice is to study something marketable.

[superdestroyer]

I had friends who attend Rice University. Most of them ended up with degrees in political science, religous studies, etc because they could not handle the work in the "marketable" degrees. Going from being Valdictorian in high school to the bottom half of your class is hard for many kids. Going to a school where you are going to be in the bottom is a mistake when many students could move down one level and achieve what they set out to do.

The top three majors at Duke University at Economics, Political Science and Psychology. Do you really think those were the reasons kids went to Duke. Wouldn't a kid be better off with a MechE. degree from Virginia Tech instead of a sociology degree from Duke?

[The Superfluous Man]

"Wouldn't a kid be better off with a MechE. degree from Virginia Tech instead of a sociology degree from Duke?"
Yes. Check the salaries here, in the graduation survey, http://www.mtech.edu/career/GRAD%20SURVEY%202005.pdf

Montana Tech engineering grads make about 50k starting, in an area with a very low cost of living, having graduated from a cheap, unselective university. An engineering degree is generally best at the bachelor's level, if you pursue nothing else afterwards.

[Russ]

There definitely is a psychology of winning that takes place when you're a big fish in a small pond. My law school was prestigious. My undergrad was not. I was more motivated during undergrad because I was labelled, "Smart" and "a winner". Law school, not so much.

[mvpy]

half sigma,

Theres paper on this by Alan Krueger and Stacey Dale. Heres the abstract:

"Estimates of the effect of college selectivity on earnings may be biased because elite colleges admit students, in part, based on characteristics that are related to future earnings. We matched students who applied to, and were accepted by, similar colleges to try to eliminate this bias. Using the College and Beyond data set and National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972, we find that students who attended more selective colleges earned about the same as students of seemingly comparable ability who attended less selective schools. Children from low-income families, however, earned more if they attended selective colleges."

However, Im still not convinced and agree with half sigma. The signalling effects of a great school are simply enormous. Its just like a Ralph Lauren top or something -its really just a quality signal to others. Who really believes the quality of tuition at Harvard, say, is 100 times better than that of the no 100 ranked college? Not I.

Perhaps, though, that a high IQ can, in the long run, trump the school. But, its hard to deny that the school can set you off to a much better start.

[spungen]

I love the dismissive tone of the first paragraph, especially toward the word "status." Like the NYT would ever hire someone from, say, Santa Clara University!

I think the litmus test is whether 1) you're going into a crowded field and 2) whether you're already from the world where people do whatever you want to do. If the answer to the first is yes, and/or the second is no, you probably need that prestige to compensate. Also, it's not PC but be wary if the only career "stars" they name-drop from your school are minorities; that doesn't tell you how the job market will be for a non-minority from that school. This is especially a problem with state and Catholic colleges.

BTW, who the hell told the NYT that Santa Clara was called "The Georgetown of the West Coast?" It and all the other Catholic colleges out here are considered mirror-foggers for admittance. They were where the dumb girls with money went from my high school who couldn't even hack USC. All the "successful" examples were of people who graduated many decades ago, back when there was a tighter Catholic power network and a college degree was rare. Nowadays, if your last name is Doheny or Chandler, feel free to go to Loyola, Gonzaga, Mount St. Mary's, University of San Diego, or Santa Clara, but otherwise ...

[SFG]

"I think the litmus test is whether 1) you're going into a crowded field and 2) whether you're already from the world where people do whatever you want to do. If the answer to the first is yes, and/or the second is no, you probably need that prestige to compensate."

This hits the nail on the head, with 'crowded' translating to a great inequality within the field. If you want to be an engineer, nurse, or an MD--fields with limited entry--it's of less importance because you can still make a good living at the 25th or 50th percentile in the field. If you're looking to be a journalist or a lawyer, then you'd better get on the prestige train.

The catch is that, of course, not everyone can do the coursework for engineering or medicine (do you have the mathematical ability for calculus? the mnemonic ability for organic chemistry?), and not everyone wants to change bedpans. If there is nothing special about you (and by definition this describes most people!) then you are better off going for the security of a government job or a job normally hard to fill (like nursing). People's big mistake is in thinking they are special. To quote Tyler Durden, "You are not a special and unique snowflake." You will not be the one guy or gal who Makes It in Hollywood. You will not be the one guy or gal who becomes the editor of the NYT. You are mediocre, and the earlier you can accept that and plan for it the better off you will be.

[spungen]

'To quote Tyler Durden, "You are not a special and unique snowflake." '

This fuels my suspicions that this blog is a front for Half Sigma's underground network.

[Peter]

and not everyone wants to change bedpans

If you suggested to a nurse that her job duties include changing bedpans, she'd get a full one (from an aide - the people who actually DO change them) and dump it over your head.

[mvpy]

SFG

In other words: "You're unique, just like everyone else".

spungen:

"They were where the dumb girls with money went from my high school who couldn't even hack USC."

Now, now. Stop taking jibes at Libertarian Girl.

[SFG]

"This fuels my suspicions that this blog is a front for Half Sigma's underground network."

HIS NAME IS HALF SIGMA!
HIS NAME IS HALF SIGMA!
HIS NAME IS HALF SIGMA!
HIS NAME IS HALF SIGMA!
HIS NAME IS HALF SIGMA!

(apologies to anyone who hasn't seen the movie...)

[triticale]

I would expect that to an employer who judges applicants based on their college educations graduating from a college which fits would rank better than flunking out of Harvard.

[spungen]

Triticale, you're buying into the myth that Harvard's classes are especially challenging compared to other colleges. Harvard is only hard to get into, not to graduate from. The average grade given nowadays is an A minus.

See Ross Douthat's book "Privilege" for more on this.

[michael vassar]

Worst of all, if you are REALLY high IQ, you may actually have to work much harder at a less competitive school than you would have to at a more competitive school for a given grade because the courses at the less competitive school will be less "g" loaded and more based on memorization.
Students who are very smart but not exceptionally conscientious should only consider any major other than economics if they have an intense passion for some other field, and should always attend the most elite school they can get into regardless of cost or fit.

[tc]

michael vassar: what's special about economics?

[SFG]

Presumably he thinks it's more theoretical. I think math or physics would also be good bets however.

[michael vassar]

Economics is as g loaded as math and physics but MUCH less work/lower standards.

[BookofSand]

No Half Sigma, you are wrong and the New York Times is right. The fixation with the most superficial aspects of education--credentialing, prestige, and name brands--is what feeds the massive oversubscription of the best-known 40-50 colleges and universities. It has little to do, however, with the way in which employers or graduate schools actually evaluate potential employees or graduate/professional students. Believe it or not, most of them actually look for people who can think, write, and reason, and the prestige of a degree from a brand-name university lasts about five minutes when the person with that degree can't perform.

In my own experience, over twenty years since graduating from college, attending graduate school in two different disciplines and working in two very different professions, the place from which someone has his or her undergraduate degree matters next to nothing for the way most people actually evaluate a given person as a colleague or employee. At most it becomes a modestly interesting part of their personal history, akin to where they were born or what their parents did for a living. I did find, however, that it was the people who cared most about the prestige of their degree or ranking of their program or university who almost invariably were the poorest students, the least intellectually adept and had the least solid sense of themselves or their talents. They seemed to have the attitude that the name attached to their diploma was more important than the actual content of their educations.

For all the rest, what was more important was how they took advantage of the opportunities that were offered them and how well it prepared them to become educated and proficient adults. For this, it really does matter if the college one goes to is the "right fit"--far more important than if it's a prestigious name. This is the consensus of serious education writers, not just those of the New York Times.

Jay Mathews, the education writer for the Washington Post had an article a year or two ago in which he listed the undergraduate colleges of his editors and others whose work he admired at the Post. There were indeed graduates of big-name private universities, but there were just as many or more who were graduates of large state universities, or of colleges (like Santa Clara) that have, at best, regional reputations. The Post (and the NYT, I assume) actually do hire people based on their talents and experience rather than the names attached to their diplomas.

[Spungen]

BookofSand, got a date or title on that WP piece?

I suspect that the editors and others cited by Mathews began their careers two or three decades ago, when the profession was less impacted and even the WP was easier to get onto. What are the two "very different professions" you've been in?